The proposal to bring bargaining to voluntary binding arbitration has set off alarms for at least one bargaining unit within the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF).
In a message circulated to members, the union’s Toronto Teachers’ Bargaining Unit (TTBU) Executive revealed to members that they have voted unanimously to oppose the proposal.
The message cited concerns that the proposal could have impacts on local bargaining. The TTBU Executive also said that they were concerned that the proposed pathway “might have a serious impact on solidarity, on our capacity to organize our members, and on building collective actions going forward.”
On August 25, OSSTF announced their decision to recommend that members adopt a proposal to resolve bargaining using a process that includes binding interest arbitration.
The proposed process would have the union and the employer bargain until October 27. All outstanding bargaining issues will then be sent to binding arbitration, meaning that OSSTF members will not vote on the arbitrator’s terms.
“The ability to strike or withdraw services is one of the cornerstones of the labour movement and has been hard fought over the years,” the TTBU Executive wrote in their internal message. “To voluntarily give up that right has the potential to set a dangerous precedent for education workers and the entire labour movement.”
Proposal brought government back to the table
OSSTF President Karen Littlewood said that the union has brought forward this proposal for the sake of their members. She expressed frustration with the pace of this summer’s bargaining. Littlewood explained that there was only one bargaining date in June, two in July and one in August.
Littlewood said in an interview with rabble.ca that she saw movement from the provincial government at the bargaining table on September 7 that had not happened prior to the proposed agreement to use binding arbitration. Littlewood said she “absolutely” believes the proposal has made a difference in the government’s attitude during negotiations.
Despite Littlewood’s optimism, many people within the labour movement continue to have concerns around the proposed pathway for bargaining.
Education workers represented by other unions have been impacted by OSSTF’s decision to vote on voluntarily entering into binding arbitration. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO), the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) and the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) received pressure from Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce to enter into agreements similar to the proposed agreement with OSSTF.
According to a report by the CBC, Lecce said that he hopes to sign a deal with these unions that “can keep kids in class.”
Other unions reject voluntary binding arbitration
The three unions released a joint statement on August 25 saying that voluntary binding arbitration would not be an option they will consider at this time.
“Binding arbitration would all but guarantee that the key issues we have brought forward at our respective bargaining tables, which are critical to learning and working conditions in our schools, would not be addressed,” the three unions wrote.
The concerns put forward by ETFO, OECTA and AEFO seem to be echoed by the TTBU Executive who compared passing the proposed OSSTF pathway to ratifying a collective agreement before it is finalized.
Labour scholars have also shared concerns with the OSSTF using binding arbitration in this specific instance. Professor Larry Savager from Brock University’s Department of Labour Studies said that using binding interest arbitration can be a minefield for unions.
“I think interest arbitration is seductive because people think it will help deliver guaranteed raises and avoid the risks associated with a strike,” Savage said in an interview with rabble.ca. “But interest arbitration is an inherently conservative process that comes with no guarantees.”
Savage said that the results of the ongoing OSSTF vote could set some very interesting precedents.
A precedent setting decision
“If [this agreement] gets rejected, I would think it would be dead in the water,” Savage said. “If the deal passes, we should expect the Education Minister to try and use it as a cudgel to beat the other unions into submission.”
Savage wrote an article with his colleague at McMaster University, Professor Stephanie Ross outlining how the government could use this agreement to pressure other unions. The article, posted to the website The Conversation, explains that binding arbitration is most commonly used for essential workers who are legally denied the right to strike. Sometimes, it can also be used to achieve a first contract or resolve a contentious strike. In these cases, the parties bargain until an impasse.
“In the case of OSSTF’s recent agreement with the province, it had not bargained to [an] impasse, let alone conducted a strike vote to test members’ resolve and try to change the employer’s position,” Savage and Ross wrote.
This course of action, if passed by members, poses the risk of normalizing the sentiment that striking is not necessary, Savage and Ross wrote. This could demobilize unions and make members passive.
Savage and Ross also asserted that binding arbitration could make bargaining difficult in the future. If parties become invested in using binding arbitration to resolve contentious issues, Savage and Ross worry that changing course in the future will prove difficult.
“Reliance on interest arbitration can actually increase bargaining impasses by reducing the incentive to negotiate terms that both parties can live with,” Savage and Ross wrote. “If a third party is going to decide what the contract says, why budge from one’s initial bargaining position?”
Savage and Ross level a biting criticism of relying on binding arbitration, saying that it “rides” on the hard fought wins of other unions.
“Arbitration is based on comparisons,” the professors wrote. “That means the quality of arbitration awards is dependent on the relative success of other unions at the bargaining table to set good wages, some of whom are forced to use the right to strike to reach settlements that meet their members’ needs.”
This “riding on the success of other unions” may be what is driving the TTBU Executive’s concerns around solidarity with other unions.
However, Littlewood remains steadfast in her commitment to working with other unions.
“We are doing this for our members and I hope people will understand,” Littlewood said.
Whatever OSSTF members decide, it will clearly have major implications for the rest of Ontario’s labour movement.
Editor’s Note – 2023/09/08: an earlier version of this story stated that Stephanie Ross was a professor at Brock University. Ross is in fact a professor at McMaster University. rabble regrets the error.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
