A data-driven look at what union certification would mean for University of Toronto faculty
This site is maintained by an UTFA member. It does not represent the official position of UTFA or the University of Toronto.
Certification would impose significantly higher dues without clear evidence of better salary outcomes. The available comparisons — across seven Canadian universities and twelve certified UofT bargaining units — do not show a reliable salary premium from certification. Before deciding, faculty should consider four questions.
Four questions to ask before deciding
1
What will it cost? Certified faculty associations charge higher dues. How much more would you pay, and what would the additional money fund?
2
Is there evidence it improves pay? The available salary comparisons — both within UofT and across Canadian universities — do not show a reliable salary premium from certification.
3
What happens to merit-based pay? Some certified unions have replaced merit systems with uniform step increases. What assurances exist that PTR would be preserved under a certified framework?
4
What else would your dues fund? Certification brings mandatory affiliations with national labour organizations. What political and social advocacy, beyond the workplace, would your dues support?
What supporters of certification argue
Supporters believe certification would give UTFA stronger legal standing at the bargaining table, the ability to strike as a last resort, access to broader labour resources, and a more formal framework for protecting members' rights. They argue that even if strike action is rare, its availability shifts the balance of power in negotiations. These are substantive points that deserve consideration.
The analysis below examines the available evidence on each of these claims. You should weigh it alongside the arguments certification supporters make.
The evidence at a glance
Update, September 2026: three new settlements
UTFA: 3.0% for 2026–27, awarded by Arbitrator Parmar in June 2026 — double the Administration's 1.5% offer, and explicitly grounded in the “top of market” principle. UBC (certified): 3.0% per year for 2025–2029. USW 1998 (certified, UofT staff): 4.0%, 3.5% and 3.0% for 2026–2029 — a stronger first year than UTFA's.
All figures and charts below include these settlements. Two results changed: UBC has moved slightly ahead of UTFA in the long-run comparison, and USW 1998 has narrowed (but not closed) its gap with UTFA.
6 of 7
UTFA has outperformed six of seven comparable faculty organizations in cumulative salary growth since 2015; the exception, UBC, is ahead by less than 1%
12 of 12
UTFA outperformed every certified UofT union with comparable ATB data over 2020–2025, and remains ahead of USW 1998 after its 2026 agreement
2×
USW 1998 dues are nearly double UTFA's — 1.45% vs 0.75% of salary
$14K–$28K
Potential career cost of higher dues at certification-level rates over 20 years
Over more than a decade spanning pre-COVID growth, Bill 124 austerity, and post-Bill 124 catch-up, UTFA's cumulative salary growth exceeds six of seven comparable Canadian faculty organizations. The exception is UBC, which was not subject to Ontario's Bill 124 and now sits less than 1% ahead. Each line ends at that institution's latest settled year; the shaded band shows the range of comparator outcomes through 2025–26.Shorter view: since 2020 ›Since 2020, UTFA ($120 at 2025–26) sits well above the comparator median ($116), and outperforms 5 of the 6 comparators with data across this window. The one exception, UBC, was not subject to Ontario's Bill 124. The comparator band ends at 2025–26 because most comparators have not yet settled 2026–27.UTFA's 18.5% total ATB increase (2020–2025) exceeds every certified bargaining unit at UofT. The two most relevant comparators — USW 1998 (professional staff) and CUPE 3902 Unit 3 (sessional lecturers) — both trail UTFA.Cumulative view: UTFA vs all UofT unions (2020–2025) ›On a compounded basis, UTFA ($120) outperforms USW 1998 ($117), CUPE 3902 U3 ($118), and the entire range of compared certified unions ($114–$118). Seven of the 12 received identical outcomes (15.8% non-compounded).Longer view: UTFA vs USW 1998, 2002–2027 (25-year comparison) ›Over the full 25-year period, UTFA is +2.4% ahead of USW 1998 cumulatively (down from +3.4% before USW's 2026 agreement). Both experienced the same economic pressures, the same employer, and the same provincial policy constraints.
What many members may not know: arbitrations have established that UofT faculty salaries must be “top of market” relative to Canadian peers. This principle, embedded in arbitration precedent, is what produced the Gedalof catch-up award after Bill 124 was struck down, and it was the stated basis for the June 2026 Parmar award of 3% — double what the Administration offered. It protects faculty salaries independent of certification status.
1. The Cost of Certification
Certified faculty unions charge higher dues than non-certified associations. The data from CAUT's governance review of UTFA shows a clear pattern:
Takeaway: Certified unions (gray) consistently charge higher dues than non-certified associations (blue). UTFA is already the most expensive non-certified association. Source: CAUT Comparative Governance Review, September 2025.
Why are certified dues higher?
Certified faculty unions typically fund strike reserves, expanded professional staff, and mandatory affiliations with national labour organizations (CLC, CAUT Defence Fund, NUCAUT). The median certified faculty association charges a mill rate of 10.5 (1.05% of salary), compared to UTFA's current 7.5 (0.75%). Among certified faculty associations: Queen's and Western charge 1.0%, Carleton 1.3%, Dalhousie 1.25%, and Laval 2.0%.
USW Local 1998, the certified union at UofT representing staff, charges 1.45%.
Dues Cost Calculator
Current UTFA dues (0.75%)$1,500
Projected certified dues$2,600
Annual increase+$1,100
20-year career cost+$22,000
Takeaway: At every salary level, certification-level dues mean hundreds to over a thousand dollars more per year.
2. Does Certification Improve Pay?
Supporters of certification argue it would lead to better salary outcomes. The available comparisons within UofT and across Canadian universities do not show a reliable salary premium from certification. That does not mean certification cannot affect pay, but the evidence does not demonstrate that it does.
Comparator faculty unions: wide variation, no reliable premium
Comparing UTFA to seven comparable faculty unions at other Canadian universities over the past decade reveals enormous variation in outcomes — and no consistent advantage from certification:
Alberta (AASUA) — certified faculty union — had three consecutive years of 0% increases despite full union status and strike power.
Ottawa (APUO) — certified faculty union — negotiated Bill 124 remediation of 8.5% over three years, comparable to UTFA's Gedalof Award, suggesting certification was not the decisive factor.
UBC (UBCFA) — certified faculty union — had persistent 2% increases for years before a 2023 catch-up. Its new 2025–2029 agreement provides 3% per year, consistent with British Columbia's public-sector bargaining mandate. UBC is now the one comparator ahead of UTFA cumulatively, by less than 1%.
York (YUFA) — certified faculty union with a history of strike action — ended up at similar cumulative outcomes to UTFA over the Bill 124 period.
Waterloo (FAUW) — non-certified, like UTFA — also performed competitively, showing that non-certified associations are not at a structural disadvantage.
UTFA's Gedalof Award (2022–23) delivered a substantial Bill 124 catch-up, achieved through binding arbitration without certification or a strike mandate.
UTFA's Parmar Award (2026–27) delivered 3%, matching UBC and the most common settlement among U15 universities, again through binding arbitration. The arbitrator called UBC “particularly relevant” as a comparator: gains at peer universities flow through to UofT via the top-of-market principle.
Settlements for 2026–27 are clustering around 3% regardless of certification status: UTFA 3.0%, UBC 3.0%, Alberta 3.0%, York 2.85%.
Year-by-year ATB increases (2015–2027) ›The annual ATB percentages behind the cumulative comparison. UTFA's Gedalof Award catch-up (2022–23) is visible as the largest single-year increase across all comparators.Cumulative comparison: since 2020 ›Focusing on the post-2020 period: UTFA outperforms 5 of the 6 comparators with data across this window (Dalhousie's data begins in 2022–23). The one exception — UBC — was not subject to Ontario's Bill 124. Each comparator is measured against UTFA at that comparator's latest settled year.Year-by-year ATB increases: since 2020 ›The annual ATB percentages for the post-2020 period. Alberta's three years of 0% and UTFA's Gedalof catch-up stand out.
All UofT unions: same employer, same constraints, UTFA ahead
UofT has numerous certified bargaining units. The UTFA bargaining document compares ATB increases across 12 of them — spanning professional staff (USW 1998), teaching assistants (CUPE 3902), service workers, library workers, and others. All negotiated under the same fiscal constraints, including Bill 124. If certification reliably produced better pay outcomes, we would expect at least some of these unions to outperform UTFA over that period. None did.
UTFA's total ATB increase of 18.5% (2020–2025) exceeds every one of these certified units. Seven of the 12 received exactly 15.8% — a striking uniformity that suggests the administration offered a standard package regardless of union affiliation.
Year-by-year ATB increases for UTFA and the two most relevant UofT comparators: USW 1998 (professional staff, 6,300 employees) and CUPE 3902 Unit 3 (sessional lecturers, 1,300 employees). While timing differed, UTFA's cumulative outcome ($120) exceeds both ($117 and $118 respectively).
USW 1998's 2026 agreement: a stronger year, a narrower gap
In September 2026, USW 1998 ratified a three-year agreement with ATB increases of 4.0% (retroactive to July 1, 2026), 3.5% (2027) and 3.0% (2028). Its first-year increase exceeds UTFA's arbitrated 3.0% for 2026–27, and supporters of certification can fairly point to it as an example of what bargaining backed by the right to strike can achieve.
It is also one year in a longer record. In 2025–26, USW received 1.8% to UTFA's 2.5%, and cumulatively since 2020 UTFA remains ahead ($123 vs $121 on a $100 base). USW's 2027 and 2028 increases are already contracted, while UTFA's are not yet determined; UTFA would need to average roughly 2.4% a year over those two years to stay ahead. This comparison will be updated as those outcomes become known.
Through 2026–27, UTFA is +1.7% ahead of USW 1998 cumulatively. The dotted line shows USW's contracted increases for 2027–29; UTFA's increases for those years have not yet been bargained or arbitrated.A note on comparability ›
Faculty and staff roles differ, and salary dynamics are not perfectly comparable. But these comparisons are meaningful precisely because all groups negotiate with the same employer under the same fiscal constraints, and experienced the same policy environment (including Bill 124). Certification did not differentiate outcomes.
The two most relevant comparators are USW 1998 (professional staff — the largest certified unit, and the one with roles closest to professional-grade work) and CUPE 3902 Unit 3 (sessional lecturers — the unit whose members do the most similar work to UTFA members).
Long-run view: UTFA vs USW 1998, 2000–2027 ›Since 2002, UTFA is +2.4% ahead of USW 1998 cumulatively. Both experienced the same economic pressures and provincial policy constraints. Because certified-level dues would cost an additional 0.3–0.7% of salary every year (USW 1998 charges 1.45% vs UTFA's 0.75%), certification would need to deliver a sustained salary advantage of at least that size just to break even.
Existing salary protections
Arbitrations have established that UofT faculty salaries should be "top of market" relative to Canadian university peers. This principle, embedded in arbitration precedent, provides a form of salary protection that does not depend on certification status.
The most recent example came in June 2026. The Administration proposed a 1.5% increase for 2026–27 and argued that its settlements with other UofT unions (then 1.8–2%) should set the norm. Arbitrator Parmar instead looked to peer research universities, including UBC, and awarded 3%, finding that it “maintains the University's top position.” UTFA had sought 4.9%; supporters of certification may argue that strike leverage would have closed more of that gap.
Supporters of certification may argue that strike power would provide additional leverage. That is a reasonable position, but it is worth noting that UTFA has secured substantial outcomes through binding interest arbitration without the disruption and risk of work stoppages. Whether strike power would produce materially better results is an open question that members should weigh carefully.
3. Questions About Merit-Based Pay
Some certified unions have historically favored flatter salary structures over merit-based systems. This pattern is worth examining as faculty consider certification.
Precedents worth examining
In a recent round of bargaining, UTFA's own proposals (2024) included restructuring PTR (Progress Through the Ranks) so that 50% of available PTR funds would be based on merit, with the remaining 50% based on career progress/experience — a significant shift from the current merit-based system.
There is also an institutional precedent at UofT: USW Local 1998's 20th Anniversary Magazine (2018) describes how, before certification, UofT staff had a merit-based pay system. Upon unionization, they replaced it with a step system (Pay Salary Grades 1–20 with fixed steps). The magazine presents this as a key achievement of the union.
These examples do not prove that certification would necessarily eliminate merit-based PTR. Some certified faculty unions — such as Alberta's AASUA — have maintained merit increment pools in their collective agreements. But the pressure toward flatter compensation structures is real, as shown by USW's history at UofT and UTFA's own bargaining proposals. Dalhousie (DFA), a certified faculty union now included in our salary comparisons, explicitly describes its salary structure as based on “academic rank and step within the salary scale, with regular progression through the scale over time” — a step-based model. In the 2026 arbitration, UTFA proposed distributing part of the ATB as a flat dollar amount — what the Administration called “salary compression” — and the arbitrator declined, noting that “a disparity in salaries is not necessarily evidence of an inequity.” UTFA also sought a larger PTR pool, but pool size and allocation are separate questions: its 2024 proposal would have allocated half of PTR by experience rather than merit. Under the current framework, arbitrators have repeatedly declined structural changes of this kind; a collective agreement has no such filter. Faculty who value merit-based compensation should ask for explicit assurances about PTR before supporting certification.
Why merit-based PTR matters
Research excellence: Merit-based PTR rewards faculty who produce significant research, win grants, and publish in leading journals.
Teaching innovation: Faculty who develop new programs, mentor students, and earn teaching awards are recognized through merit assessment.
Differentiation: Under a step system, increases are uniform regardless of contribution. Merit systems recognize that not all contributions are equal.
Recruitment: Top researchers choose UofT partly because performance is recognized. Flattening compensation may affect the university's ability to attract and retain leading scholars.
The question is not whether certification will inevitably eliminate merit pay, but whether adequate protections would be in place to prevent that outcome. Before voting, faculty should seek clear answers about how PTR would be handled under a certified bargaining framework.
4. Broader Labour Affiliations
Union certification would formalize UTFA's ties to the broader labour movement, bringing obligations and activities that extend beyond workplace representation.
What certification brings
Certified faculty unions typically affiliate with national labour organizations such as the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the CAUT Defence Fund, and NUCAUT (National Union of CAUT). These affiliations come with financial contributions, which may be mandatory depending on the affiliation structure. They also involve participation in broader political and social advocacy campaigns that may not reflect the views or priorities of all members.
Supporters of these affiliations argue they provide solidarity, shared resources during disputes, and a stronger collective voice for post-secondary education at the national level. These are legitimate benefits. The question is whether they — and the broader political activities that come with them — justify the additional cost, given that UTFA's existing structure has delivered competitive salary outcomes without them. Members should consider what these affiliations would mean in practice before deciding.
Frequently Asked Questions
Won't a union get us better raises?
The available comparisons do not show a reliable salary premium from certification. Since 2015, UTFA has outperformed six of the seven comparable Canadian faculty organizations we can measure; the exception, UBC, is ahead by less than 1%. At UofT itself, UTFA's 18.5% total increase (2020–2025) exceeds all 12 certified bargaining units for which comparable ATB data is available, including USW 1998 (15.8%) and CUPE 3902 Unit 3 (16.8%). Seven of the 12 received exactly the same total. USW 1998's 2026 agreement (4.0%, 3.5%, 3.0%) is stronger than UTFA's 3% for 2026–27, but UTFA remains ahead cumulatively since 2020. Certified faculty outcomes vary enormously: Alberta's AASUA had three years of 0%, UBC had persistent 2%, and York — which has actually gone on strike — ended up at similar cumulative outcomes.
What about strike power?
Supporters of certification value strike power as leverage, even if rarely exercised. That is a reasonable argument. It is also worth noting that faculty strikes are extremely rare in Canada and carry significant professional consequences. UTFA's binding interest arbitration mechanism has produced substantial results — including the Gedalof catch-up award after Bill 124 and the 2026 Parmar award of 3%, double the Administration's offer — without the disruption and risk of work stoppages. Members should weigh whether the potential leverage of strike power justifies the costs and obligations that come with certification.
Aren't UTFA dues already high?
Among non-certified associations, yes. UTFA at 0.75% is the highest (McGill 0.58%, Waterloo 0.53%, McMaster 0.50%). Certification would likely push dues toward the certified faculty median of ~1.05%, or potentially higher — Queen's charges 1.0%, Carleton 1.3%, Dalhousie 1.25%. USW 1998 at the same university charges 1.45%.
What about job protection and grievances?
UTFA already handles grievances and advocates for members in disputes with the administration. Certification would add the right to strike, but the existing grievance and arbitration framework provides substantial protections. Members should assess whether the additional mechanisms that certification brings are worth the associated costs and obligations.
Would certification speed up bargaining?
Delays in reaching agreements — and the frustration of waiting months for retroactive pay increases — are real irritants in the current system. But certification does not eliminate this problem. Certified faculty unions face the same structural challenge: Alberta's AASUA, a fully certified union with strike power, has the same bargaining cycle pressures and no guarantee of timely settlement, and USW 1998's own 2026 increase was settled in September and paid retroactively to July 1. Strike power may add leverage, but it does not accelerate the procedural timeline of negotiations. The delays are a product of academic bargaining dynamics, not UTFA's certification status.
Would merit-based PTR be preserved?
There is no guarantee either way. The mix varies across certified faculty unions. But the direction of pressure is clear: USW 1998 at UofT replaced merit pay with a step system, and UTFA's own bargaining proposals (2024) included shifting PTR to a 50/50 merit/experience split. Before voting, faculty should seek explicit written assurances about how PTR would be handled under a certified bargaining framework.
