Arbitrator Teplitsky recently issued his award for faculty members at the University of Toronto. He awarded 4.5% over 2 years (in addition to regular progress through the ranks) and increased the overload rate to that received by the highest ranking Sessionals at the UofT. He also increased the professional expense allowance to $1500/year (and higher for tenure-stream faculty).
More interesting than the actual award is the reasoning behind it. The University of Toronto had attempted to argue that faculty should receive "zero and zero" over the two year agreement because the government had refused to fund any compensation increases. His argument is cogent - the government no longer has the ability to legislate wage freezes (because of BC Health) and has therefore not done so. However, an arbitrator is supposed to replicate collective bargaining and not act as an instrument of government policy.
In fact, Arbitrator Teplitsky observed that since public employees should not have to subsidize public works, it would be better for governments to raise taxes, than to expect public workers to take freezes while private sector workers enjoy wage increases.
However, UTFA's request for even higher wages in order to preserve UTFA's superior wages with respect to all other collective agreements in Ontario was rejected.
Arbitrator Teplitsky took the position, after reviewing 30 years of bargaining and multiple factors, that wage increases of 4.5% over two reflected similar settlements at other Ontario universities and that as an arbitrator he had to promulgate an award that reflects this fact.
Did he get it right?
If he had implemented the "zero and zero", what would that have meant for interest arbitration in Ontario?
If the government's position is that it won't fund salary increases, how does this differ from Mike Harris' freezing and cutting of transfer payments as a way out of provincial deficits?
No comments:
Post a Comment