Understanding the Numbers

McGill recognizes the important contributions of MUNACA-represented employees to the University's mission and to the daily services that support students, faculty, researchers, and the broader community.

Recent public commentary has highlighted several compensation and financial figures related to collective bargaining. The University believes it is helpful to provide additional context regarding how certain figures are calculated and what they do, and do not, represent.

1. Ongoing Collective Bargaining

The collective agreement expired in 2024, and the parties remain engaged in the bargaining process. Economic adjustments following the expiry date remain the subject of collective bargaining. Eligible employees have continued to receive salary progression provided under the existing salary structure where applicable.

McGill remains committed to constructive collective bargaining and to reaching a renewed collective agreement through the established bargaining process. Since March 26, 2026, the parties have been engaged in conciliation and have, since May 20, 2026, agreed to maintain confidential exploratory discussions regarding specific bargaining issues. The proposals exchanged during these discussions remain confidential to allow the parties to engage openly and constructively in the negotiation process. As a result, information communicated publicly may not capture the entirety of the issues, proposals, and discussions currently under consideration. McGill remains focused on reaching a negotiated collective agreement and is actively participating in the process in a serious, respectful, and good-faith manner.

The University will continue to provide factual information to the community while respecting the collective bargaining process and the role of all parties involved.

2. Compensation Growth Since 2021

Some publicly circulated figures indicate that MUNACA salary increases since 2021 have totalled 6.1%. The 6.1% figure reflects the economic increases negotiated for the salary scale in 2022 and 2023. It is accurate in that specific context. However, it does not capture all the elements that may affect employee compensation.

What the 6.1% Includes

• 3.0% economic increase in 2022
• 3.0% economic increase in 2023

What the 6.1% Does Not Include

• Salary progression through steps
• Additional step increase provided in 2022
• Integration increase into the new salary scale implemented in 2022
• Lump-sum signing payments
• Continued salary progression after the collective agreement expired

Employee compensation may evolve differently from economic increases alone, depending on an employee's position within the salary structure and eligibility for progression.

Understanding Compensation Growth Since 2021

The 6.1% figure frequently cited publicly reflects negotiated economic increases to salary scales, rather than a 6.1% increase to individual salaries. Employee compensation may also be affected by salary progression, salary-scale integration and other provisions of the collective agreement. Compensation outcomes therefore vary among employees.

3. Compensation Growth and Economic Increases

Public commentary has compared inflation with economic increases applied to MUNACA salary scales. While inflation affects purchasing power and may form part of the broader economic context, it is not the methodology or sole benchmark used to determine salary increases.

Compensation is considered within a broader framework that includes factors such as market positioning, internal equity, salary structures and progression, financial sustainability, recruitment and retention considerations, and negotiated priorities.

It is also important to distinguish between economic increases to salary scales and individual salary growth. Eligible employees may experience additional growth through salary progression, salary-scale integration and other negotiated provisions that are not reflected in economic increases alone.

Future economic increases and other compensation provisions will continue to be determined through the collective bargaining process within this broader context.

4. Comparing Compensation Measures

Some public comparisons contrast compensation growth for MUNACA employees with compensation growth for senior leadership positions. When reviewing these figures, it is important to compare equivalent measures. For example, some publicly cited calculations compare:

• economic increases to MUNACA salary scales covering 2 years; and
• salary policy budget covering 3 years for senior academic positions.

These measures are not equivalent and may lead to conclusions that do not reflect the full picture. Economic increases alone do not represent total compensation growth for MUNACA employees. Comparisons are most meaningful when the same methodology and compensation components are applied to each group.

5. Understanding Endowment Funds

Questions have also been raised regarding the University's endowment. Endowment assets are not equivalent to unrestricted operating funds. The vast majority of endowment funds are subject to donor restrictions and can only be used for specific purposes established by donors.

As a result, the market value of the endowment is in no way an indicator of the amount of funding available to support ongoing operating expenses, including compensation costs. Compensation decisions must be considered within the context of operating revenues, expenditure commitments, legal restrictions on funding sources, and long-term financial sustainability.

6. Understanding Budget Comparisons

Public commentary has suggested that compensation increases could be funded because they represent a relatively small percentage of the University's overall budget.

Budget percentages can provide useful information about scale. However, they do not, by themselves, determine affordability or long-term sustainability.

University budgets support a wide range of obligations, including:

• teaching and learning activities;
• research;
• student services;
• facilities and infrastructure;
• compliance and regulatory requirements;
• debt obligations; and
• compensation for employees across the institution.

Compensation proposals must therefore be assessed in the context of the University's broader financial commitments and available funding sources.

7. Understanding Workforce Data

Some publicly available statistics compare employee headcount and salary mass data across different categories over time.

These figures can provide useful information. At the same time, workforce data should be interpreted carefully.

Changes within an employee category may reflect a combination of factors, including:

• organizational restructuring;
• evolving operational requirements;
• regulatory and compliance responsibilities;
• changes in position classification;
• reporting practices; and
• ongoing improvements in workforce data management and reporting.

As a result, headcount figures alone do not necessarily provide a complete picture of how administrative, managerial, or support functions have evolved over time.

8. Understanding Institutional Trends

Some public commentary combines enrolment figures, workforce data, and compensation and salary mass data to draw conclusions regarding institutional priorities and financial decisions.

While each of these indicators may be useful individually, they measure different aspects of the University's operations and do not, by themselves, establish a causal relationship.

Student enrolment is only one of many factors that influence staffing requirements. Universities must also respond to evolving academic, operational, legal, research, financial, and regulatory responsibilities.

In addition, changes that have occurred over time to definitions of employee groups included in government mandated reports have created compositional inconsistencies in the published data, making it unsuitable for trend analysis. For these reasons, individual data points should be interpreted within the broader context of the University's operations, responsibilities and regulatory obligations.