Welcome

In this edition of CEC’s newsletter, we provide an update on academic part-time and sessional bargaining, sector news, and a case study on Mandatory Layoff Grievance Referral Requirements.

Follow the CEC on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay informed in between newsletters.

What's going on?

Four Colleges on Forbes Best Employers for Company Culture List

Forbes has ranked the top 200 Canada’s Best Employers For Company Culture 2026. This list showcases the importance of company culture to both employees and employers, and to identify workplaces that have created thriving environments. This list was created with market research from Statista who surveyed more than 37,000 Canadian-based employees at companies with at least 500 people in the country.

The four Colleges/ Polytechnics who made the list include: George Brown Polytechnic (6), Humber Polytechnic (11), Algonquin College (129) and Centennial College (133).

Bargaining Update

Part-time Academic and Sessional Bargaining (CAAT-A PT/SL)

On August 19, 2026, the OPSEU CAAT-A PT/SL and CEC Management bargaining teams met at the bargaining table.

The CEC presented its full non-monetary package to the Union bargaining team and answered questions. Typically, OPSEU presents its full non-monetary package first; at this time, they have provided some proposals to the CEC. We have asked the OPSEU CAAT-A PT/SL team to present its full non-monetary package the next time we meet so we can provide a meaningful, comprehensive response to all proposals rather than a piecemeal one.

The OPSEU CAAT-A PT/SL team has accepted some of our previously offered bargaining dates. Currently, 8 dates have been agreed upon, 5 of which are tentative based on Union availability. The confirmed dates include September 28, October 28, and November 16, 2026.

Management is committed to accurately representing all proposals. All documents exchanged at the table are available on the CEC website here.

Our next bargaining date is September,28 2026.

Meet the CEC Team

The CEC supports Ontario’s colleges with essential services in labour relations, benefits, governance, and human resources. Behind that work is a team of experienced and deeply committed professionals who support colleges and their employees every day.

Through this profile series, we invite you to get to know the people behind the work and the roles they play in assisting colleges.

Reema Uppal - Human Resources Officer

Reema Uppal is a Human Resources Officer at the College Employer Council (CEC), where she supports grievance administration and labour relations for Ontario's public colleges. She was recently recognized for more than 20 years of service with the CEC. With more than 22 years of experience in human resources, grievance, and arbitration administration, she works closely with CEC's Vice President and Director of Labour Relations, as well as college management teams, arbitrators, legal counsel, and union representatives. Her responsibilities include coordinating joint grievance scheduling meetings, arbitration scheduling, case management documentation, and communications throughout the grievance and arbitration process. 

In addition, Reema supports the work of the Central Arbitration Review Committee, which oversees arbitration funding, professional development opportunities, and discussions on emerging labour relations trends affecting Ontario's college sector.

She is recognized for her strong organizational skills, professionalism, and collaborative approach, and is committed to supporting fair practices, compliance with collective agreements, and positive labour-management relationships across the college system.

Prior to permanently joining CEC, Reema held several roles within Ontario's college sector. At Seneca Polytechnic, she supported orientation and professional development programs for new employees as well as doing salary administration.  She later joined the College Compensation and Appointments Council (CCAC) [the predecessor to the CEC], where she gained experience in grievance and arbitration administration. She also filled a Benefits Administrator role at CEC, where she audited employee benefit and pension programs and supported Benefits compliance across participating colleges.

Reema holds a Bachelor's Degree in Human Resources and Labour Relations from Athabasca University, a Diploma in Human Resources Administration from Seneca Polytechnic, a Business Certificate from Seneca Polytechnic, and a Certificate in Generative AI from IBM.

Case Study

The Consequences of Non-Compliance: Arbitrator Affirms Mandatory Layoff Grievance Referral Requirements

A new arbitration award on academic layoff grievance referrals to arbitration confirms the Union’s obligations to comply with the layoff grievance and referral provisions of the collective agreement.

In this case, two Grievors submitted their grievances to the College without specifying “the positions occupied by full-time and non-full employees whom the employee claims entitled to displace” as required by 27.08 A and then both referred their grievances to arbitration without specifying “from the positions originally designated in 27.08 A, two full-time positions, or positions occupied by two or more partial-load or part-time employees (the sum of whose duties will form one full-time position), who shall thereafter be the subject matter of the grievance and arbitration” as required by 27.08 B.

In both cases, some days after the referral to arbitration the Grievors submitted lists of courses they claimed they were qualified to teach along with the names of less senior partial-load and part-time faculty members who taught those courses

The College argued that the provisions of 27.08 are mandatory and substantive provisions, that cannot be waived by the College. Therefore, a failure to comply with those provisions rendered the grievances inarbitrable. The actions of the Grievors after the fact did not cure the fatal flaws, and even if they did, the Grievors still did not comply with 27.08 A or B by failing to identify positions into which they could be placed.

The Union responded that the failure was procedural, not substantive. The Union also claimed that the College’s statement in the grievance responses that the College was “reserving its rights to raise jurisdictional objections” wasn’t relevant as the College took a ‘fresh step’ when it accepted the referrals without objection. Since the failure was procedural, the Union claimed, the College waived the right to rely on a breach when it took the “fresh step”. The Union also claimed the College wasn’t prejudiced by the Union’s failure to meet the mandatory requirements stipulated by 27.08. Finally, the Union alleged the rejection of a grievance for a technical defect violated the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008.

The Arbitrator reviewed the authorities and found that the case law has been clear and settled for years and accepted the College’s position. 27.08 A & B are mandatory and substantive provisions that are not subject to waiver nor cured by subsequent actions or particulars. A matter going to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator can only be waived expressly and cannot be waived through inadvertence or omission. In this case, not only was there no express agreement, but the College also reserved its rights to make preliminary arguments including those going to arbitrability and jurisdiction in their grievance response letters. Finally, the Arbitrator found that the defect in the grievances and arbitrations referrals was not a “defect of form or any technical irregularly” but rather was a fundamental question of jurisdiction.  

One other important point to mention is that the Union claimed that the grievances also raised alleged violations of Article 2, and were not subject to the requirements of 27.08 A & B. The Arbitrator rejected this argument entirely, finding that “[t]he Grievances are claims by the Grievors that they have been improperly laid off contrary to various provisions of the Collective Agreement, so they are clearly subject to the requirements set out in Article 27.08. That is not changed merely because one of the Articles in the Collective Agreement alleged to have been violated is Article 2.”

You can read the decision here: https://canlii.ca/t/kk4lj. Please reach out to us at CEC if you have any questions.