Talks between the University of Toronto and the University of Toronto Faculty Association over salaries for faculty members continue to drag on a month after a resolution was expected in August.
After failing to reach agreement in February 2009, both parties invited Mr. Martin Teplitsky, an independent arbitrator, to settle the differences between them. The central issue involved regular salary increases for 2009 and 2010. Under normal circumstances, faculty at post-secondary institutions receive regular salary increases every year. In addition, professors also receive increments from money set aside to recognize their career progress. These latter payments are known as “progress through the ranks.”
After allocating PTR payments in 2009, the administration froze them for 2010 and argued that they could allocate normal payments for 2010 only if there were no regular increases in salaries, and if professors increased their pension contributions, according to a brief provided to the arbitrator. The administration further argued that the money available for PTR, which constitutes about 1.9 per cent of total salaries, should take “precedence” over salary increases. In the brief, the administration argued that the university could not afford salary increases because a one per cent increase in professors’ salaries would cost about $3.95 million dollars.
In 2009, total university expenditures were $2.07 billion, of which $991.8 million went towards salaries.
UTFA argued that salary increases should be in line with the norm for the post-secondary sector, or about three per cent of total salaries. The association submitted that other major universities operating in similar economic conditions in Ontario and Canada have awarded their faculty members comparable sums. In a brief provided to Teplitsky, UTFA points out that U of T markets itself as the leading post-secondary institution in Canada, and argues that salaries for professors should therefore correspond with the university’s claims to represent the “top of the market.” UTFA also asked the arbitrator to channel the salary increases so that faculty members who earn less get a higher proportion.
Complicating matters further was the provincial government’s announcement earlier this year that it was urging public sector workers involved in collective bargaining to exercise restraint with wage increases.
“They don’t want to interfere with existing contracts or with the negotiating process [or] get into micro-managing, or overruling any existing agreement or contract or unionized settlement,” said UTFA President George Luste, who has participated in talks with the provincial government throughout August. “They just want everybody to at some point agree to a two-year salary freeze.”
The university, however, took this before the arbitrator to argue that it was being pressured by the province to not increase salaries, according to Professor Scott Prudham, who heads UTFA’s bargaining team. Prudham said that this claim was disingenuous because the university’s position to not increase salaries was put forward in June 2009, nine months before the province announced its intention to freeze public sector salaries.
“The reason we ended up going to arbitration, I think a big part of it was because the administration was insisting on a zero-across-the-board increase,” said Prudham. “We considered their proposal to be outrageous and just a non-starter so we really didn’t have a basis for negotiations.
“In my view, one of the reasons this has taken so long is that UTFA is trying to change a system that rewards the few at the expense of the many and the administration seems not as inclined to want to change that,” he said. “We just have different philosophies as to how the institution should be directed.”
Senior administration officials were contacted by The Varsity but declined to comment on issues under arbitration. U of T President David Naylor declined to comment other than to say that the university was seeking a settlement that would not contribute to its current financial difficulties. “It’s very important for us to get a reasonable deal that avoids putting the university into more of a financial bind,” he said. “The quality of the administration is in part to be concerned about the quality of working life of faculty and staff so I’d like to see a sustainable and fair deal as possible.”
At the request of Mr. Teplitsky, the talks between the faculty association and the university resumed this month, with a meeting on September 8 that lasted most of the day, according to sources familiar with the talks. The parties met again on Saturday and Sunday and a resolution is expected by the end of September.
