University of Western Ontario Staff Association

The University’s Administration, in a memo to leaders and a Western News story, weighed in on the Ontario Government’s public sector salary restraint measures yesterday. Western, through its Provost, says that, “the legislation indicates that all universities are included, and hence it does affect all Western employees” and that, “when we begin bargaining for new agreements with any group, we will need to pay attention to the government's expectation – as stated in the legislation – that there be no net increase in compensation through to March 31, 2012”.

The news item goes on to say that Western is seeking legal advice about the meaning of the legislation and, “will inform all employees and their representatives as quickly as possible” about the application of the legislation. UWOSA has already done its research, and I thought it may be helpful to provide our insight.

The legislation we are talking about is the “Public Sector Compensation Restraint to Protect Public Services Act, 2010” and is contained in schedule 25 (pages 62-71) of the Act which implements the Ontario Budget. The Administration’s statement that the Act applies to universities is true. However, it does not apply to unionized employees anywhere (see section 4(2) point 1 of the legislation). That is, the Act only covers non-union employees. The Administration’s statement that it affects all employees is false.

The Administration likely knows which employees are covered and which are not, of course, and their statement that it “affects” all employees rather than “covers” all employees may be designed to lead community opinion in a particular direction, while leaving sufficient ambiguity to keep the door open to alternate interpretation. Whatever the intent of the message, the Administration’s words appear to have been very carefully chosen. It is true, to be sure, to say that that this legislation will affect unionized employees even though it does not cover them. It will create pressure to moderate wage demands. But that pressure is part of the collective bargaining process and is always there, to some degree, for public sector workers. So, there may be a little more pressure at the bargaining table this year, but the legislative framework within which we bargain has not changed.

It is also true that the Government has made statements, in the media and in writing, that it expects – that it wants – unionized workers to consider collective agreements without increases to wages or benefits. But these are just that – statements with no legally binding force. The Government’s words are not without impact, admittedly. We will, no doubt, hear them repeated at the bargaining table. And we will, no doubt, respond to them vigorously.

Why hasn’t McGuinty frozen unionized workers’ wages, you may be wondering? The answer may be that his legal advisors are telling him what we believe – that he cannot legally do so. In a landmark 2007 decision (B.C. Health Services) the Supreme Court of Canada gave collective bargaining Charter protection. We believe this case set a precedent which would prevent McGuinty from interfering directly (that is, through legislation) with collective bargaining.

Finally, to reiterate what I’ve said before: There should be no public sector wage freeze for any workers, unionized or not. However, the proper response to the McGuinty plan is to fight him on it, not to attempt to indirectly interfere with the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions.