Skip to main content

Striking B.C. teachers at the Vancouver Art Gallery during a noon time rally June 16, 2014.

John Lehmann/The Globe and Mail

The B.C. government says in new court documents that a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling has bolstered its fight to avoid restoring 2001 contract language to teachers' collective agreement.

In a court case brought by B.C. Teachers' Federation, the B.C. Court of Appeal asked lawyers for the government and the teachers' union to file new submissions in light of the ruling earlier this month on collective bargaining rights for Mounties.

In documents filed on Monday, the province argued the Supreme Court's decision strengthens its position on terms deleted from its collective agreement with teachers.

Story continues below advertisement

In 2002, the province passed legislation that removed hundreds of provisions from the contract, including the right to bargain for class size and composition.

The government argues the Supreme Court affirmed its position, which is that the teachers are guaranteed the right to bargain on these issues, as the court requires, but have no constitutional guarantee of a specific outcome.

"The BCTF is not entitled, as a matter of constitutional principle, to forever preserve an outcome of bargaining," the government states in its brief.

On Jan. 16, the Supreme Court of Canada issued two RCMP-related rulings: Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (MPAO), which gave Mounties the right to unionize, and Meredith v. Canada (Meredith), which ruled in favour of the government on legislation that unilaterally rolled back Mounties' wage hikes.

In MPAO, the court ruled 6-1 that the RCMP's internal program for negotiating workplace issues is constitutionally inadequate, and federal public-sector legislation precluding Mounties from applying for statutory bargaining rights violates the right to freedom of association.

Legal observers and the teachers' union said the ruling guarantees a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

But the government's new documents say MPAO "is of no relevance" in the current case, as the BCTF "does not argue that the statutory bargaining model for teachers is deficient."

Story continues below advertisement

Further, the province said the Meredith decision means the government "must provide a meaningful opportunity for impacted employees to make representations before collective agreement terms are legislatively removed, but it is not required to secure agreement at the bargaining table as a condition of constitutional compliance."

Fiona McQuarrie, an associate professor at the University of the Fraser Valley's School of Business, said it appears the government is saying "that whether the amount or type of consultation was appropriate depends on the context and the issues in that particular set of collective bargaining relationships."

A B.C. Supreme Court judge in 2011 deemed the removal of the language on class size and composition unconstitutional and gave the province a year to amend it. A year later, the court called the new legislation "virtually identical" and slammed the government for bargaining in bad faith.

The BCTF, which has until Feb. 2 to file its further submissions, has said Bill 22 extended unconstitutional provisions into the future.

With a report from Sunny Dhillon

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies