Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why have professors at the Faculty of Law decided to form their own association and seek certification under Quebec’s Labour Code?
The right to organize and bargain collectively is an internationally recognized human right and is constitutionally guaranteed. The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that that s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “guarantees the right of employees to meaningfully associate in the pursuit of collective workplace goals (…). This guarantee includes a right to collective bargaining.”
The Quebec Labour Code provides in s. 3 that “Every employee has the right to belong to the association of employees of his choice, and to participate in the formation, activities and management of such association.” Professors at the Faculty of Law have decided to pursue our collective goals of securing beneficial working conditions by exercising our constitutional rights, given that the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT) is not certified under the Quebec Labour Code and therefore cannot engage in collective bargaining with the University.
Why did the TAT accept our accreditation as a union at the Faculty level?
The Tribunal Administratif du Travail (TAT) decided on 7 November 2022 that AMPL members fulfill the criteria for an appropriate bargaining unit, the principal ones being a community of common interest (similar work qualifications and conditions, common interests in bargaining) and the will of the employees. The judge stressed that the overall objective of the Quebec Labour Code is to favour unionization. While unionization must not prevent the employer from running the business in an efficient manner, he said, in the unique context of McGill where there was currently no other union for professors, that objective becomes particularly important.
Where else in Canada are there universities with individual faculties that are unionized?
We draw inspiration from the Osgoode Hall Faculty Association, which is the union representing professors at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. It co-exists with the York University Faculty Association. Both are members of the Canadian Association of University Professors (CAUT), the organization representing Canadian university professors’ associations.
We also draw inspiration from the Association des ingénieurs-professeurs en sciences appliquées which represents professors at the Faculty of Engineering of the Université of Sherbrooke and is a member of the FQPPU alongside the Syndicat des professeures et professeurs de l’Université de Sherbrooke. Similarly, the Association des professeurs de l’École Polytechnique de Montréal represents the school of engineering of Université de Montréal and is an FQPPU member alongside the Syndicat général des professeurs et professeures de l’Université de Montréal.
What is the experience with collective bargaining in those contexts?
We understand that the experience has been beneficial for all faculty concerned. The parallel associations are able to benchmark their collective agreements against each other and pursue common objectives as they arise. To quote from the Osgoode Hall Faculty Association website: “We also maintain a close relationship with the York University Faculty Association, which for many years has contributed indirectly to protecting the terms and conditions of employment of Osgoode faculty.”
Will Faculty level unionization make the University ungovernable?
McGill’s administration is challenging the TAT’s Nov 2022 decision to certify AMPL through judicial review. The main reason for opposing AMPL’s certification is that it would make the University ungovernable. McGill warns that the number of bargaining units could multiply to include academic departments and other sub-Faculty units. For now, two other McGill Faculties have sought accreditation, both of which have multiple departments not seeking to be individual unions. There are a total of seven other Faculties which could potentially unionize as full-time tenured professors. There are 14 existing non-Faculty unions at McGill representing most other personnel, from teaching assistants and course lecturers to maintenance workers and printing services. In the TAT’s accreditation decision, the judge noted that McGill has in the past found ways to reduce the complications of dealing with its multiplicity of unions, including by grouping negotiations at times. That McGill has chosen, instead, to challenge the certification of Faculty unions through multiple levels of the judicial system suggests that the real objective is not fewer unions, but none.
Faculty-level unions would not inherently undermine uniformity across the University. With at most ten Faculty collective agreements in place, individual employment contracts would be simplified and rendered more transparent and equitable. A raft of McGill University policies do apply uniformly across all Faculties, such as those relating to academic freedom or tenure. In negotiations, AMPL and McGill agreed that AMPL will be subject to most of them, with specific adaptations made as would pertain to the Faculty of Law in a collective agreement, such as making grievance procedures available or instituting a Faculty-level committee to make decisions in relation to such policies. Many McGill regulations already foresee carve-outs for unionized employees. Further, there are also currently many areas in which each Faculty has distinct policies and practices, such as salaries, teaching load, curriculum and participation in Dean selection. These can be reflected in specific frameworks on a Faculty-by-Faculty basis.
