Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services

The overall bargaining structure in the province needs to change. It is now highly fragmented,
with over 3,900 bargaining units. Many bargaining units, particularly in the BPS, are poorly
resourced. One difficulty with a large number of collective agreements is that many employers,
particularly small employers, cannot appropriately resource the negotiations. To a degree, the
effects of this risk can be mitigated through consolidation of bargaining. Ultimately, the
province needs to move to a smaller number of bargaining units and allow that to facilitate
more consistent and complete attention and allocation of resources.
A smaller number of collective agreements will reduce overhead costs for both employers and
bargaining agents. However, it will not directly result in lower wage settlements.
Centralized bargaining may take the form of a master table to negotiate sector-wide issues of
concern (e.g., wages and benefits) in conjunction with sub-agreements that address issues
related to local practices and distinctions in job structures and work processes. This two-tier
approach provides the flexibility of not requiring consolidation of bargaining units or
standardization of local terms and practices. Depending on the industry or segment of the
BPS, the specific centralized bargaining framework may be structured along either occupationbased
lines, across an entire sector, or through a combination of specific employers and
occupations. Examples of this include elementary and secondary education, colleges, specific
occupations in health, and community and social service transfer payment agencies. Some
segments of the BPS would not be candidates for more centralized models of bargaining.
However, even where more centralized bargaining would not be appropriate, mechanisms to
support desirable co-ordination should occur. Fostering effective sectoral and local practices,
including ongoing discussion, and relevant data collection and analysis would be beneficial.
Recommendation 15-10: The government should facilitate a voluntary movement to
centralized bargaining for municipalities — particularly in relation to police and firefighting
bargaining.
A fundamental problem with municipalities is that they each have a different funding base
(i.e., own-source revenues — property taxation, user fees, municipal licensing fees,
development charges, investment income, etc., and the amount of funding from senior levels
of government). Centralized bargaining works best when the employer side has one funding
envelope (e.g., the OPS and its employees). In some circumstances, very small employers
would be quite disadvantaged if swept up in a wage settlement driven by larger employers with
deeper pockets.
The <strong>Commission</strong> recognizes that mandating centralized bargaining for municipalities would not
be ideal for the reason discussed above. The financially weakest municipalities would likely
face slightly higher-than-normal compensation increases, rather than the larger municipalities
seeing their employees’ pay increases dragged down.
376