Illustration by Katie Doyle

After months of negotiations have failed to reach an agreement, the bargaining agent of Ontario’s publicly funded colleges has filed for conciliation and filed a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, accusing them of “not bargaining in good faith.”

The Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology – Academic (CAAT-A), the bargaining arm of the union which represents all full-time and part-time professors, counsellors and librarians, and their employers, the College Employer Council (CEC), have been unable to come to terms on a new collective agreement since talks began in July.

The previous agreement, which began in October 2017 and expired in September 2021 sparked discussion over the conditions of renewal. But after months of negotiations, the tensions of which have been steadily escalating, speculation grows of an impending strike. Students may recall a similar situation occurring in 2017, which resulted in a five-week-long college faculty strike.

The parties met a total of 12 times since July, where the CAAT-A team discussed over 350 proposed amendments across nine themes, while the CEC put forward fewer than 40 proposals. CAAT-A says its proposals largely focused on issues such as workload, equity, Indigenization, and academic freedom.
From August to October, CAAT-A reduced the number of changes suggested four separate times, shrinking demands to a total of 19 proposals in a final offer to settle released October 21. The CEC had released a without prejudice settlement offer on October 19, which was rejected by CAAT-A. Two additional discarded settlement offers were made by the CEC prior to this.

Mediation

When no consensus could occur, Mediator Brian Keller was appointed and welcomed by both parties on September 27 to oversee discussions. After further attempts at a compromise, Keller concluded negotiations and recommended a non-adversarial process to be held in March 2022.

In a lengthy report, Keller insisted that CAAT-A made no attempts at compromise, sticking firmly to goals which are allegedly far too copious and idealistic.

“What the bargaining team is seeking, through negotiating an employment contract, is to effect [sic] social and cultural change. Collective bargaining, which is designed to change an employment contract, is not the right forum to effect [sic] social and cultural change. The goal is laudatory and deserves to be pursued, but not in this forum,” said Keller in the report, which can be accessed in full here.

While the report read very much in favour of the CEC’s position, CAAT-A adamantly dismissed the mediator’s findings, claiming that their proposals were stripped down in favour of initiating productive conversations with the CEC team. According to one faculty representative, they “were repeatedly told by the CEC team that their offer of settlement was the only path to a negotiated agreement.” Furthermore, CAAT-A claimed that Keller’s published with little to no direct communications with the union.

Conciliation & Unfair Labour Practice complaint

Following the release of Mediator Keller’s report, CAAT-A invited the CEC to meet on November 1 in favour of discussing next steps over escalation. On the morning of said meeting day, the CEC filed for conciliation as well as issued an unfair labour practice (ULP) complaint against the union. This would involve the Ontario Ministry of Labour in negotiations, which if unsuccessful would allow the union to legally initiate a strike, lockdown or imposition.

According to the CEO of the CEC, Graham Lloyd, the employer approached the ministry as advised by Keller’s. The CEC rejects claims by CAAT-A that Keller’s report was biased and cited that the characterization maligns his 20 years of experience as a mediator and respect earned within the college sector.

Additionally, according to Lloyd, because the faculty demands encompass issues such as workload conditions are controlled under Bill 124, their proposals were deemed unrealistic. Workload demands by CAAT-A require the CEC to exceed the one per cent increase in total compensation that they are permitted to allow by the government.

“Another meeting for them to vigorously pursue demands that are simply not permissible by law made no sense and could not be productive,” said Lloyd. “Conciliation will cause another review and hopefully a reconsideration of their positions.”

For negotiations to conclude, Lloyd hopes that the CAAT-A team will accept their standing settlement proposal, which he claims will reasonably address all of the complaints that have arisen, with no current intent to disrupt labour stability. He also anticipates that CAAT-A will choose to remove unreasonable demands from the table and comply with the ULP.

Union Response

On the other hand, Jeff Brown, a George Brown professor and Acting Chief Steward of OPSEU Local 556, said the CEC has been uncooperative from the start.

“The first thing that happened, even ahead of this bargaining round, was in February. The CEC proposed an extension offer on the collective agreement,” he said.

Brown said that initiation outside of the bargaining round set the tone for future meetings, in that the CEC wanted to move forward seemingly without discussion.

He believes Keller’s report was “highly inappropriate.” Normally, Brown said, the content of the mediation would be confidential and non-biased – but the union member felt that reporting was extensively opinionated in favour of the employer, vague, excessive and factually incorrect.

Furthermore, Keller’s claim that social change does not belong in an employment contract was strange to Brown. Issues such as benefits or family leave deal with social issues by definition, and as such Brown feels that the union’s demands are valid and pertinent.

Instead of stating that each party had opposite views on the purpose of collective bargaining, Keller chose to side with the beliefs of the CEC.
“The CEC is weaponizing this report for public relations purposes,” said Brown. “I hope people take a look at it and recognize it for what it is.”

In the past, the CEC has addressed issues by delaying and deflection, such as forming task forces, which never seem to result in lasting change. Brown said that the most recent offer for settlement sounded much like a non-offer for that reason.

Brown is hopeful that the CEC will recognize the legitimacy of the union’s arguments. He noted that, for example, the current workload formula for full-time staff has been used since before the Internet existed, and that many of the adjustments proposed reflect the changes that are necessary to accommodate this transformation.

However, he made it clear that the bargaining team had no intention of escalating throughout the process, nor does it now.

The union, Brown says, understands the impact a strike has on students and staff.

“It’s the last thing that faculty want.”