I Wish I Had Known! (Collective Bargaining)

Every day in schools across this province, teachers are told to do things and to take on responsibilities that they are not required to do by law. Many times the directions they get are based solely on an ambiguous interpretation of a specific section of the Education Act. Here are two examples of myths that some administrators put forward.

MYTH: The principal said that by law I must accept direction to be on duty 30 minutes prior to the startof classes to supervise bus students and that I must remain at school for 30 minutes after classes endfor the day.

Regulation 298 of the Education Act outlines a number of rules dealing with the school day. Section 20(d) specifically states teachers must be in the school building at least 15 minutes before the start of the instructional day and five minutes prior to the start of classes for the afternoon. Sections 3(7) and 11(3)(e) stipulate that the school building and the playground must be open and available to students from 15 minutes before classes begin to 15 minutes after classes finish for the day.

The simple response is that there is no law that requires this teacher to accept this principal’s direction unless supervisory duties have specifically been assigned.

Further, the current collective agreement restricts the ability of principals to assign any supervision duties, except in emergency situations, unless these duties are specifically part of the supervision schedule approved by the school supervision committee and the joint union/board supervision committee.

The more complicated response is that teachers, by their voluntary (just how voluntary is arguable!) participation in these activities have essentially created a circumstance that has formed part of the obligation of service. We have carried out these responsibilities for so many decades that it’s difficult to now say no. This is explained further in the following example.

MYTH: By law, the principal can call staff meetings as often as once per week and they can last for upto three hours per meeting.

Teachers continue to be pressured, intimidated, threatened, and ultimately disciplined over the issue of attendance at staff meetings.

The  Education Act  specifically  sets  out  the length  of  the  instructional  program  and  the minimum   length   of  time  classroom  teachers must be assigned to provide instruction. However, it does not set any clear maximum number of hours for either students or teachers, except that the instructional program must  normally fit into the nine-hour period between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

The  reality  is  that  the  Education Act  does empower a board and its principals to prescribe teachers’ duties and to require teachers to carry out instructional programs assigned to them. The collective agreement gives the board the power to manage the affairs of the board in all aspects and to formulate and publish reasonable rules unless the collective agreement expressly restricts them. Our collective agreements set maximum times for  instruction and supervision, and minimum periods for lunch and preparation time.

The courts and various arbitrators have ruled that certain teacher duties could be implied as a result of practice, or where it is reasonable to do so. They have also ruled that duties that are voluntarily assumed may become mandatory: when carried out over a period of time they become part of the obligations of service. However, the courts say that standards of reasonableness must apply when an employer requires duties that are not expressly spelled out in the collective agreement. In one particular case, the arbitrator ruled that it was appropriate for a board to insist that teachers attend parent-teacher interviews after school hours because teachers had done so for a long time.

The only way to deal with this is to make sure collective agreements address the issue expressly. Many of our collective agreements have begun to do so. To be effective, the language must address the number of regular and other staff meetings held during the school year, the kinds of meetings that are mandatory or voluntary (regular, divisional, team, etc.), the timing and the length of each meeting. Interestingly enough, many of our secondary colleagues experience situations of “early closing” on staff meeting days. One has to wonder where elementary teachers made the wrong turn in the road!

Summary

Elementary teachers are torn between the need to provide for students and the need to reduce workload. The Ministry of Education and school boards have only made this situation worse with their continued efforts to introduce new programs, new tests, and additional commitments for teachers. If you haven’t noticed yet, overload has arrived and in many cases has reached well beyond what is reasonable.

Because some boards and principals push the limits, sometimes blatantly disregarding reasonableness, members are pushing back and more and more of them are demanding that the federation address these working conditions in negotiations.

The only way to address increasing workload is to ensure that collective agreements contain language about such working conditions as staff meetings, about when teachers must be in the school, and about the kind and number of after-school and weekend functions we are compelled to attend.

To begin to remedy workplace overload every member should:

• Respond to the next local bargaining survey
• List issues like staff meetings, supervision, and other working conditions as priorities
• Respond to the principal, the board, and the local union leadership each time a new demand is added to the program
• Speak out to boards, principals, and to our local union leadership that enough is enough
• Be willing to take a strong stand, up to and including strike action to back up your demands.

The success of education and the health of our membership demand such action now! We need working conditions that let us do what is important – teaching children!