Reference no: EM133477268
On 16 October 2017, 500,000 college students woke up to discover that they had no classes.
Approximately 12,000 professors, instructors, counsellors, and librarians employed at 24 different Ontario colleges had gone on strike. The faculty were represented by Ontario Public Services Employees Union (OPSEU). OPSEU claimed that the main strike issues related to the large number of part-time instructors being hired relative to full-time instructors, job security, language protecting academic freedom, and wages. When the strike started, the union was seeking a 9 percent increase over three years. The union noted in a press release announcing the strike: "[The Employer] Council is committed to a 'Walmart model of education' based on reducing the role of full-time faculty and exploiting underpaid contract workers who have no job security beyond one semester" (OPSEU, 2017).
The College Employer Council, negotiating on behalf of the colleges, had offered 7.75 percent over four years, claiming that this increase was in line with other public sector agreements. The Employer Council further argued that the union's demands were not sustainable as they would increase costs by $250 million a year.
Over the 50-year bargaining history between the parties, this was the fourth strike. The previous strikes in 1984, 1989, and 2006 each lasted about 20 days. This fourth would be the longest in their bargaining history, lasting five weeks. As early as the first day of the strike, students in the tens of thousands signed a petition seeking a refund of $40 per day of the strike. As the strike continued into November, student, public, and government reaction continued to build. On November 6, a vote was held, and 86 percent of union members rejected the most recent employer offer. Seeing no end in sight for this strike, then Premier Kathleen Wynne was making media statements by mid-November concerning the need to end the strike and get students back to class. By this time, the student petition for a refund per day of the strike had over 130,000 signatures, a class action lawsuit was being launched for students seeking refunds if they decided to abandon their studies, and the government had ordered that a fund be created to help offset the financial burden experienced by students as a result of the strike. This government ordered fund would come from the savings related to the colleges not operating or paying faculty wages during the strike.
Five weeks into the strike, on 19 November, the government passed back-to-work legislation putting an end to the strike. The unresolved issues were to be sent to binding arbitration. For students, the college term was being extended by about two weeks, so they did not lose the term. About one month later, on 20 December, following binding mediation-arbitration, the details of the collective agreement were released, with both the Employer Council and OPSEU claiming victory. The award from arbitrator William Kaplan included the wage increase originally offered by the employer back in October: 7.75 percent over four years. With these financials, Don Sinclair (CEO of the College Employer Council), "praised the arbitration results for allowing colleges 'to be responsive to local economic needs in a timely and flexible way'" (McGillivray, 2017). There was also an agreement that a joint task force would be set up to examine issues related to precarious employment. In addition to the arbitrator's settlement, Advanced Education Minister Deb Matthews announced two student-focused initiatives. First, once classes resumed, students could, for a two-week period, decide to not continue their studies and receive a full tuition refund. Second, students could apply for up to $500 to help offset any costs they incurred related to the strike and the longer semester (rent, travel rebooking fees, daycare, etc.).
Using the industrial relations model presented in this chapter (Figure 1.1),
1. Identify and name the actors in the case.
2. Discuss what external inputs you feel are most relevant in this case.
3. Name and identify the conversion mechanisms and outputs presented in the case.