Credit to OPSEU/SEFPO Local 244 Sheridan College President Jack Urowitz for this summary
In reviewing the Award for you, I feel that it is worthwhile to quote the following three paragraphs from Arbitrator Kaplan’s Award, before I start my summary. Quotes from the Award are in Italics.
In fact, between 2012/2013 and 2020/2021, Ontario’s colleges experienced a 15% decline in domestic students and a 342% growth in international student enrolment. This changing demography – and risks associated with it – did not go unnoticed. According to Ontario’s Office of the Auditor General – as set out in its December 2021 report, Value-for-Money Audit: Public Colleges Oversight – the high reliance on international students created fiscal uncertainty. This was also the conclusion of the 2023 expert panel report: Ensuring Financial Stability for Ontario’s Postsecondary Sector: Ontario’s colleges and universities were only sustainable because of foreign student tuition fees. The numbers make this manifest: In 2022/23 tuition revenue totalled $4.356 billion, with an estimated 76.6% of that coming from foreign student fees.
The warnings materialized in January 2024 when a new cap on foreign student (and related) visas was announced by the federal government. While this cap was described as temporary, it has been extended. Not only are new foreign student enrolments down, so too are the number of existing international students progressing through years of study. Twenty-three of the twenty- four colleges have reported a 48% decrease in Semester 1 enrolment from September 2023 to September 2024: 91,306 vs. 46,555 (and the enrolment number decline brings with it a parallel revenue reduction in foreign tuition fees).
The impact of these declining numbers of foreign students has been both immediate and dramatic. By the spring of 2025, more than 600 programs were cancelled/suspended, or their cancellation/suspensions announced, and four colleges have closed campuses or announced their closure. The list of program cancellation/suspensions disclosed in these proceedings is, in a word, alarming. Program after program in college after college are identified and then described as follows: “Program Suspension of All Deliveries with the intent to Cancel” or “suspended” or “teach out ends” or “program closure with teach out.” As of June 2025, nineteen of the colleges have reported staff reductions – current and planned – of more than eight thousand employees.
Details of Support and Administrative Staff are in the Award,
But Faculty (all categories) total reduction is 4,662 more than half of the employee reduction total, mostly contract teachers
Academic Full-Time: 613
Academic Non-Full-Time (Partial-Load, Part-Time, Sessional): 3370
Academic Non-Full-Time 679 (Anticipated for Fall 2025)
As Arbitrators are charged, Kaplan recounts the details of the College’s arguments followed by the Union’s arguments. He does a good job capturing the essence of the two positions. Then he articulates his digesting of the facts and opinions in a comparing and contrasting section he calls ‘Discussion’.
It starts with this paragraph:
In deciding the outstanding issues, normative interest arbitration criteria including replication, the economy, demonstrated need, total compensation, comparators and gradualism have been carefully considered. The current factual context is extremely important. There can be no gloss: the colleges are facing unprecedented financial pressures brought about by federal government changes to foreign student visa rules, Provincial Attestation Letter allocations, post graduate work permits and changes and classification of instructional program coding. Tuition freezes/reductions implemented by the provincial government are also a significant contributing factor. The overall situation is not expected to significantly change, if at all, during the term of the collective agreement being settled by this award.
For those inclined, the opposing arguments on surplus are ‘discussed’, with the College reluctant to spend and the Union promoting a one year contract so that the ‘hidden’ numbers can be uncovered and utilized to make informed joint Union/College proposals on how to move through these challenges. As reported, we at Sheridan, on the union side of the College Employment Stability Committee (CESC) have had to file two grievances because our requests for enrolment and financial data have gone unanswered.
The CESC’s management-union personnel are working well together on individual cases, but the Union has not been party to any future planning participation. This is true in most colleges. Our new CA has a remedy that just might work. It mandates at least three CESC meetings spread throughout the year, every year, to share employment security concerns and pertinent data. Right now we only meet when layoffs are in the offing, and only begin our work after the college has made layoff decisions.
Kaplan draws the ‘discussion’ to an end with three priorities:
Overall, I am persuaded that there is demonstrated need for this award to focus to the extent possible on
1. enhanced severance for full-time employees,
2. enrolment improvements for partial load employees (on top of previous benefit improvements as provided in the MOA), and
3. workload.
The Chart from the Bargaining Team enumerates important provisions of the new CA language, as well as this link to the Award. You’ll have to open the attached Award to read the full articles.
Term and Wages – Three year CA duration is common, 7.5% over three years is a moderate wage increment.
Severance – Substantial increase, Kaplan lowers College monetary incentive to lay off employees, while increasing the value of the severance choice after layoff.
Article 8.04 A &B – Partial-load profs swill now be compensated for union duties, but they are not cumulative towards their teaching hours, just hourly pay
Article 8.06 – Only applies to those seconded to OPSEU provincial duties
WORKLOAD – All of the following don’t begin until January 2026 (almost half way through this CA’s duration)
Article 11.01 C – Our biggest loss. The Colleges wanted our teaching hours to be defined as half hours. They got their wish, except that weekly totals must be in whole numbers. Shorter classes could equal more classes.
Article 11.01 D 3 – It doesn’t stipulate how much, but it does say that teaching in a new delivery mode (to you) should be a separate workload category.
Article 11.01 E 1 – Evaluation factor (eval type X #students X #TCH) for essays or projects, increased from 0.030 to 0.35. This is our first foot in the Workload Measurement door since the creation of the SWF!
Article 11.01 F 1 – The Mandatory Complementary Hours on every SWF go up to 7 hours a week (from 6).
Article 11.01 F2 – For the over 260 students’ prof. If the college doesn’t offer some marking help (i.e. TA), the prof gets more evaluation time on their SWF. Each student over 260 getting adding a separate evaluation time.
Article 11.04 A2 – It’s about time – counsellors and librarians now have a set monetary amount per hour payment for overtime work. Most important here, it is a first that the CA acknowledges that there is a fixed workload that can go into overtime for non-SWFed professors. This too is a door opening in non-teaching workload bargaining.
Article 11.09 A 1 – If ¾ of a Faculty group want a modified workload (Article 11.09, which allows SWF parameters different that those outlined in the rest of Article 11) the local union shall not unreasonablywithhold its required signature. It would be reasonable (to me) not to sign if the Profs involved were being coerced into accepting a ‘creative’ workload.
Article 14.03 A 3 – Now the College has to canvass all relevant Full-time and Partial-load profs to offer the coordinator job, before they can go outside the bargaining unit.
Article 26 Partial-Load Employees
Article 26.10 D – Starting in academic year 26/27, it looks like, the signing onto the Partial load Registry will be more automatic. Have to see how this pans out.
Article 26.10 E – This is good. It changed “currently” to “previously” to apply to the four years necessary to have the seniority protection on this whole Partial-load article.
Article 26.10 F – Stipulates when the Registry does not apply. At first glance it seems fair.
Article 26.10 G –A PL can now officially be granted a leave of absence. This is only fair.
Article 26.11 – New language, PLs get $65.00 an hour for meetings and other Faculty events they must attend.
The rest of the changes are improvement for the union rights to participate more collaboratively in the Employment Stability at the college.
Fleming Faculty Union 