Printable version

Regional collective bargaining, restrictions on teachers' strikes urged in Bill 100 review

In a report released November 1, 1996, and submitted to Ontario Minister of Education John Snobelen, lawyer Leon Paroian makes some 14 recommendations for overhauling the collective bargaining regime in the province's education sector. At issue is the fate of Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, introduced in 1975. The report contends that this legislation, which provides for local, full-scope bargaining between teachers and school boards, is no longer viable in the current economic climate. Accordingly, the report recommends scrapping Bill 100, along with the Education Relations Commission that administers it, and enacting a separate part of the Labour Relations Act to govern labour relations in the province's schools. This article will discuss some of the report's recommendations. Readers can find the complete list of recommendations in the January 1997 issue of FOCUS (see "Paroian report on school board/teacher bargaining released" on our Publications page). (To subscribe to FOCUS, click here).

TEACHERS' DUTIES AND HOURS OF WORK, SCOPE OF BARGAINING

The report criticizes what it claims is the ambiguity around teachers' responsibilities and recommends that the Education Act be revised to more completely define the duties and hours of work of teachers. Specifically, it is critical of the practice of negotiating preparation time, arguing that this should be determined by the school principal on a school by school, or class by class basis. The report asserts that the amount of preparation time is not necessarily related to the quality of an educational program, and that it drives the scheduling of classes and the hiring of additional teachers.

Co-curricular activities should be defined as part of a teacher's responsibility, the report urges. The report takes teachers to task for withholding the provision of these activities during a work-to-rule, while at the same time maintaining that co-curricular activities form part of the duties for which they are paid.

In a related recommendation, the report expresses support for statutory entrenchment of a series of non-negotiable management rights, citing the need for school boards to be accountable to the public interest. One example of an item to be reserved to management is class size and staffing.

REGIONAL BARGAINING

The report recommends the adoption of a model of regional bargaining between teachers and school boards. According to the report, the current model of local negotiations favours teachers, in that the branch affiliates are able to call on their central federations for support, while school boards must fend for themselves. The alternative of centralized provincial negotiations is rejected as being too slow, too removed from local issues, too easily politicized and not necessarily cost-effective.

CURBING TEACHERS' STRIKES

A similar imbalance between the power of teachers and school boards is pointed to with respect to strikes and lockouts. Describing teachers' strikes as "hostage taking", the report asserts that the equivalent weapon of a lockout is effectively unavailable to school boards for political reasons.

Noting that, in the 20-year history of Bill 100, some 17.1 million student days were lost due to labour conflict, the report suggests repeal of the right to strike or lockout, and its replacement by mandatory arbitration. It acknowledges, however, that this recommendation is unlikely to be politically viable. The report therefore urges that the Minister of Education be given the power to delay or terminate strikes or lockouts on such terms as he or she deems appropriate. Currently, the Education Relations Commission advises Cabinet when the school year is in jeopardy and, if the government chooses to act, the Minister brings a bill before the Legislature for the termination of the work stoppage. As an alternative to this recommendation, the report suggests allowing the parties to refer outstanding differences to binding arbitration.

Teachers' ability to withdraw services would also be restricted by adopting the definition of "strike" in the Labour Relations Act and stipulating that teachers on work-to-rule could not receive pay, thereby, the report notes, effectively ending the use of this strategy.

ARBITRATION "COURT"

Referring to submissions made concerning the delay in holding grievance arbitrations under Bill 100, and the inability of interest arbitrators to address the question of employer ability to pay, the report recommends the creation of a permanent arbitration "court", staffed by adjudicators independent of the parties. This body would deal with all grievance arbitrations on an expedited basis, as provided for in the Labour Relations Act. Interestingly, this recommendation is made despite its rejection by almost all the parties, and by 25 specialists in education law who were consulted on the question.

IN OUR VIEW

It seems remarkable that Mr. Paroian recommends regional bargaining without taking account of the costs associated with this step. The Bourns Report revealed that the cost of integrating collective agreement benefits more than offset the anticipated savings from centralizing administrative functions.

The recommendations regarding preparation time, class size and staffing have greater potential for effecting cost savings. However, it remains to be seen whether this proposed "tool kit" will indeed be legislated by this government.