Throughout this round of bargaining, the College Employer Council (CEC) has repeatedly refused to negotiate significant issues regarding workload, staffing, or fairness for partial-load faculty. They have justified their obstinacy by claiming that changes to these areas would violate Bill 124, which limits compensation increases to individual employees in the public sector.

At no time has the CEC ever offered a substantial legal analysis to support their position, which they have often repeated.

OPSEU requested a legal brief on Bill 124 as it impacts our bargaining, from Christine Davies of the law firm Goldblatt Partners LLP. The conclusions of this brief are clear:

“In our view, the union’s proposals regarding workload do not offend Bill 124”, since the tabled faculty proposals “…do not result in an increase to salary or compensation, as defined by Bill 124.”

Davies confirms that impacts to Employer costs through changes to workload or staffing are distinct from the changes to employee compensation that are the subject of Bill 124. She writes, ”Nothing in Bill 124 requires employers to limit themselves to 1% increases in the cost of delivering their services[, including] from hiring additional staff or changing staffing models. . . . Rather, Bill 124’s focus is more narrowly on restricting the increases in salary/compensation that flow to employees.”

Davies further explains that disagreements in Bill 124 actually justify referring unresolved issues to arbitration, as the faculty bargaining team has proposed since November. She concludes, “a solution to the parties’ disagreement regarding whether the Union’s proposals are consistent with Bill 124 would be to resolve the outstanding bargaining through binding interest arbitration”.

The CEC has frequently relied upon a report written by Mediator Brian Keller–written following the failed mediation between OPSEU and the CEC–to support their claims about Bill 124. Davies, however, notes that Keller’s report is not a legal analysis, but rather was written, “in a mediation context,” where Keller “did not have the benefit of legal submissions regarding the application of Bill 124 to specific proposals.”

For months, the faculty team has argued that the CEC should either bargain, at the table, the issues that are important to faculty or refer outstanding issues to binding interest arbitration. In her legal analysis, Christine Davies concludes that both of those options are permissible and appropriate in light of Bill 124.

Your bargaining team,
JP, Jonathan, Katie, Michelle, Ravi, Rebecca, and Shawn

Other Bargaining Updates

College faculty bargaining team statement

The college faculty bargaining team has issued the following statement: Arbitrator William Kaplan has imposed a media blackout on the upcoming voluntary mediation-interest arbitration between the colleges’ and college faculty bargaining teams. There will be no further...

Joint statement by OPSEU/SEFPO and the College Employer Council

OPSEU/SEFPO’s college faculty bargaining team and the College Employer Council have issued the following statement: The parties have reached an agreement to enter binding interest arbitration and the strike that was scheduled to commence at 12:01 am on March 18, 2022,...

College faculty to resume talks with employer

Toronto – With some 16,000 college faculty set to go on strike at 12:01 Friday morning, the College Employer Council (CEC) and the faculty bargaining team have agreed to meet Thursday. “We were encouraged that the CEC replied to our letter and have agreed to meet...

College faculty set strike deadline

TORONTO – Some 16,000 faculty at Ontario’s 24 public colleges say they will go on strike at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, March 18 if the College Employer Council (CEC) does not agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration.   The faculty bargaining team sent an open letter...

Work to Rule: Phase 3

Started 12:01am, March 02, 2022 Focus Work-to-rule must impact the functioning of the colleges in order to work as a bargaining strategy to bring the Council back to the table to discuss faculty’s needs. The colleges and CEC have chosen to abandon negotiations and to...

Five reasons to REJECT the CEC’s forced offer

Click here for a printable PDF version The College Employer Council’s forced offer fails. It’s a terrible contract that fails faculty, fails students and threatens to harm the entire college system. All faculty should vote to reject the colleges’ offer, because: (x)...

Dates confirmed for the College Employer Council’s forced-offer vote

The College Employer Council (CEC) filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) yesterday for a forced-offer vote. Their latest offer includes only a slight change from the offer they tabled on November 23, 2021. It also follows its decision to...

OPSEU/SEFPO files ULP over CEC interference in bargaining

Toronto – On January 14, 2022, OPSEU/SEFPO filed an unfair labour practice (ULP) complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, accusing the College Employer Council (CEC) and a number of colleges of interfering in the rights of members to support their union’s...

OPSEU/SEFPO denounces college failures raised by AG

TORONTO – OPSEU/SEFPO hopes the leaders at Ontario’s public colleges don’t ignore recent concerns expressed by the Auditor General about an over reliance on international student tuition for the colleges’ financial viability. OPSEU/SEFPO President Warren (Smokey)...