Certification Process Historical Context
The Faculty Association is the only body at the University of Guelph that has consistently defended the rights of the faculty and librarians. The relationship between the University of Guelph administration and UGFA goes back more than 50 years and has, generally speaking, been a good one - both collegial and congenial.
However, in the late 1970’s, the faculty, believing that a formalization of faculty rights and privileges was required, voted to start negotiations on a Special Plan Agreement (SPA). UGFA finally concluded negotiations of the Special Plan Agreement, outside of the Labour Relations Act, in 1983 and the faculty voted to approve the document in June 1983. As per Article 2, the intent of the SPA was:
- 2.1 - to improve the quality of education and to facilitate the maintenance of high standards of excellence through promotion of collegial relations between members of the faculty, librarians, and the University administration;
- 2.2 - to create or confirm the minimum rights, privileges, and benefits to the Association; and to create or confirm the concomitant responsibilities of the members of faculty and the librarians to the University;
- 2.3 - to provide an effective procedure for the determination of salaries and benefits for faculty members and librarians;
- 2.4 - to formalize the relationship between the University and the Association, to maintain conditions of support for the Association and to provide an orderly procedure for resolution of differences between the parties to this Agreement.
The SPA formalized relations between the Association and the Administration. The negotiated agreement gave UGFA official status as the representative of faculty and librarians with respect to salaries, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment. Within the SPA, an academic freedom policy was negotiated and a faculty/administration liaison committee (Joint Consultative Committee, JCC) was created to deal with changes to the SPA on an ongoing basis. A procedure and time frame for settlement of grievances as well as mediation for salary and benefits (binding arbitration was rejected by the administration) were also agreed to. The intent of the SPA was to
“embody principles rather than details of specific policies or practices.”
and it is noted in Article 3 that
“there may be instances where current policies of the University including, but not limited to, those found in the Faculty Policies Handbook, and Terms and Conditions of Employment for Professional Librarians and the Research Policies and Information Handbook may appear to be inconsistent with the principles of this Agreement ... (and) where cases of disagreement occur, the principles which are established in [the SPA] ... will have precedence”.
Also under the terms of the SPA Article 10, the Joint Faculty Policy Committee (JFPC) was created. It is stated that
“10.6 The Joint Faculty Policies Committee will be responsible for making recommendations on all matters pertaining to policies, procedures and practices relating to the terms and conditions of employment for faculty, excluding salaries, pensions and insured benefits”
and in Article 10.7
“Any amendments or additions to existing policies, which are subsequently developed by the Joint Faculty Policies Committee, will be sent to each faculty member for comment. After review of such faculty comment, the Committee will make its recommendations to the President of the University and will send a copy to the President of the Association . . . and following consultation with the President of the Association, the President will either forward the recommendations to the Board of Governors or return the recommendations with comments to the Joint Faculty Policies Committee . . .”
Thus it is through the JFPC that most of the “rules and regulations” that affect the workings of key areas of faculty life, such as appointments, disciplinary action, promotion, tenure, TAPSI, etc. are crafted for placement in the Faculty Policy Handbook.