Arguments for certification
The fundamental difference between certified and non-certified status is that, in the latter case, agreements between UGFA and the University are governed only by the Employment Standards Act and civil law. In the case of certification, the Labour Relations Act becomes the operative legislation. The most important judgement that needs to be made, in a decision regarding possible Certification, is whether the status quo is tolerable.
In disputes with the Administration, the only remedy open to UGFA (other than writing letters and complaining to JCC), is to take civil action. This has never been done. Because the threat of civil litigation by UGFA is so weak, the Administration has - and knows that it has - leeway to disregard existing contractual obligations, whether by neglect, uneven application, or flagrant violation. Several examples can be given such as the requirement that the number of professional staff members performing functions normally assigned to faculty be limited to fifteen (Article 17.5) or the failure of the university to provide copies of the Special Plan Agreement and Faculty Policies Handbook to faculty and librarians. “It is easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission”. The provision in LTSB (the Long-Term Salary and Benefits agreement) to maintain salaries in at least 5th place within the Ontario system has been allowed to atrophy. The Administration discusses Pension issues with UGFA, but continues to deny that UGFA has a legitimate right and duty to negotiate Pensions. We believe that there are other substantive examples in which, without due process as we understand it, changes to terms and conditions of work are under development.
UGFA also encounters tremendous resistance when it attempts to improve its services to faculty.
The Association has often expressed its desire to meet with short-listed candidates for faculty/ librarian positions, so that we can ensure fair and equitable treatment. The administration has never been willing to provide such an opportunity. More generally, the Administration has been reticent to share information UGFA deems relevant, such as names of new faculty, copies of employment and other contracts,etc.
How badly is UGFA’s role hampered by this situation? That is the key question.
Certification would change the nature of the relationship between the University and the Faculty Association in that it imposes more substantial obligations on both parties. Under the Labour Relations Act, both parties have an obligation to bargain in good faith and to fulfill agreed-upon commitments. Disputes are handled by an arbitrator. UGFA would also have a clear legal obligation to its members. For example, at the present time, UGFA has the option of simply leaving issues and disputes unresolved, because, in the absence of status under the Labour Relations Act, there is no mechanism for faculty members to force resolution. Following certification, individual faculty members would have the right to grieve against UGFA and demand resolution of issues. Certification also provides the means for a more equal relationship with the Administration. For instance, the university has long maintained that UGFA has no legal right to negotiate pensions. UGFA disagrees strongly with this position and certification would guarantee the legal recognition of the Association as the sole bargaining agent for all faculty and librarians. Further, the Labour Relations Act, which would govern our legal status as a certified Association, provides very strong tools for ensuring enforcement of agreement. Without certification, the only legal recourse that UGFA has is to take action through the civil courts. Finally, with certification agreements between the University would be lodged in a single document (i.e. Collective Agreement) rather than multiple documents (Special Plan, Faculty Policy, Librarians Terms & Conditions, LTSB, etc.).