An arbitrator has ruled that some of the ways Laurentian University determines the salaries of its teaching staff is too subjective, and has ordered it to review – and increase – how much a social work professor is paid.
In a decision released Jan. 10, arbitrator Larry Steinberg provides a brief history of the dispute between the university and the LU Faculty Association, which represents educators at the school. Initially, the union accused Laurentian of discriminating against female professors when determining salary.
“In 2018 and 2019, a number of grievances were filed by faculty members alleging that the employer had arbitrarily determined starting salaries,” the transcript says. “Included among the issues in those grievances was a claim by the union of systemic discrimination on the basis of sex in the setting of starting salaries.
“The parties agreed to proceed with the grievances insofar as they were based on the allegation that the starting salaries were determined arbitrarily and to deal with the allegation of discrimination in the setting of the starting salaries separately.”
In a May 2019 memorandum of agreement, the school agreed to review its decision on salary for the professors taking part in the grievance. Those professors were to submit their arguments explaining why their salary should be higher, and the school would respond either agreeing, or with details of why they disagree.
The school received 12-15 submissions from professors arguing for a higher salary.
It was up to the arbitrator to rule whether the university's revised salary decisions conformed to the collective agreement.
In the case of the social work professor who grieved her salary after it was revived, she argued the school should have given her 20.2 years of experience, not 12 years that Laurentian calculated when she was hired in 2017.
However, when the school reviewed her salary as part of the agreement with the union, it reduced that amount to 9.7 years. The dispute centres on work she did in the years between – and during – the time she was enrolled in school, where she eventually earned her doctorate in social work.
The school said it based salaries on 11 guiding principles, two of which the union argued were arbitrary. In one, the school didn't count relevant work experience if the person was also going to school at the same time to get a master's degree or doctorate.
“(The) reasoning was that since enrolment in a master's programme typically involves two years of full-time study and enrolment in a PhD programme typically involves four years of full-time study for which credit is given, any other work during those time periods cannot be counted or it would amount to double-counting,” the transcript says.
Since much of the full-time work experience the professor gained took place while she was a full-time student in a master's and doctoral program, the school ruled it was double-counting.
The second issue related to how the school counts relevant experience, giving more credit to work experience done after the person has a degree, master's or doctorate.
“This is based on the fact that we are seeking doctorally-trained individuals as an institution of higher learning,” the school said in explaining its reasons. “As a university, the employer wants to hire individuals with both practical and theoretical experience and this principle was designed to reflect the relative weighting of these factors depending on the level of academic achievement.”
The professor also wasn't given credit for two years she spend volunteering with the Peace Corps, ruling it “was not professional experience, but unpaid volunteer work.”
But the faculty association argued those decisions were arbitrary, and violated the collective agreement. Not counting relevant work experience just because she was also enrolled in school was unfair, the union said, given the nature of social work.
“The union argues that so long as the work performed during those time periods is relevant to the grievor’s discipline, it must be credited,: the transcript says.
“The union asserts that the failure to do so is not only contrary to the collective agreement but is also arbitrary because it fails to take into account the individual circumstances of the applicant and it takes into account irrelevant or extraneous factors that do not measure the value of the person.”
The union also argued that, once someone received a degree in social work, they are qualified to work in the field and should receive the same credit for the work as someone with a master's or doctorate. And the time with the Peace Corps should be relevant experience -- whether it was volunteer work is irrelevant since it was experience in her field.
Laurentian countered that its decisions were anything but arbitrary. The system in place to determine salaries evaluated everyone on a level playing field, with details outlining why and how it came to its decision. Laurentian also argued that past rulings have set a high bar when it comes to deciding what is “arbitrary.”
“The employer strongly asserts that this is the very type of case where arbitral restraint is warranted given the nature of the hiring decisions, including the setting of starting salary, in a university setting.”
In his decision, Steinberg wrote the onus is on the union to show Laurentian's decisions were flawed and violated the collective agreement.
“I agree with the employer that a significant degree of deference must be afforded to the employer when exercising its discretion in making fundamental decisions affecting the university,” he wrote. “I would include starting salary in this category.”
But the school admitted that if another person was tasked with determining starting salaries, they might come to a different conclusion. That was shown by the fact the social work professor was given 12 years credit when she was hired in 2017, but was reduced to 9.7 years when it was part of the review.
In his ruling, Steinberg directed Laurentian to review its policy when it comes to “double counting,” saying it was arbitrary to not give the professor credit for relevant work she did while enrolled in her master's and doctorate programs.
“To give no credit at all for work that is relevant to the grievor’s discipline is an arbitrary exercise of discretion,” the transcript says.
She should also receive credit for her time with the Peace Corps, since it is relevant experience, even if she was a volunteer.
However, Steinberg agreed with the university on the biggest issue affecting her starting salary: credit for work she did before she got her doctorate. The school argued it gives more credit for work after someone gets a PhD to attract more experienced and highly trained staff.
That is well within their rights under the collective agreement, he ruled, and is the sort of issue that arbitrators should refrain from interfering with.
Read the full transcript here.
