Skip to main content

B.C. Teachers' Federation President Jim Iker addresses members of the media in Vancouver, Tuesday, Sept.16, 2014. Iker said the ruling was a victory for all working women who are pregnant or may become pregnant in the future, not just teachers.

JONATHAN HAYWARD/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The country's top court has ruled quickly and unexpectedly from the bench, siding with the B.C. Teachers' Federation in an employment dispute over maternity benefits.

The decision is the latest court victory for the union, but in this case the issues focused on two types of special employment benefits covering pregnancy and parental leave.

The union argued the B.C. Public School Employers' Association was discriminating against female teachers in the Surrey school district, which is located outside of Vancouver, by denying them parental benefits if they had already received pregnancy benefits.

Story continues below advertisement

The employer asked the top court to side with a lower court ruling, which ruled there was no discrimination, and dismiss the teachers' appeal.

Not long after oral arguments concluded Wednesday morning, the justices announced they would allow the teachers' appeal. A subsequent Supreme Court of Canada news release announced the oral judgment would follow within 48 hours.

Kasari Govender, executive director of West Coast LEAF, a women's advocacy group that intervened and argued the employer's actions were discriminatory, said the manner of the ruling was highly unusual.

"In fact, I've never heard of it," she said. "It has happened from what I understand now, but it shocked us all that they delivered the judgment from the bench.

"Normally, it would take months for them to write a decision."

The employers' association said in an email that it is not yet prepared to comment and is reviewing the ruling.

Union president Jim Iker said the ruling was a victory for all working women who are pregnant or may become pregnant in the future, not just teachers.

Story continues below advertisement

"The Supreme Court of Canada said employers cannot discriminate against pregnant women and that benefit plans for new parents must be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," he said in a news release.

The case started as a grievance in February 2011 between the Surrey Teachers' Association, which is represented by the BCTF, and the Surrey school board, which is represented at the bargaining table by BCPSEA.

The teachers argued the school board was discriminating against mothers because it didn't provide 15 weeks of parental benefits, topped up to 70 per cent of employees' salaries, if they had already received pregnancy benefits.

An arbitrator upheld the union's grievance in April 2011, but the employer appealed and the case ended up in the province's top court.

The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in September 2013 that the arbitrator erred and dismissed the teachers' grievance, and the case ended up in the Supreme Court.

Govender said the decision has restored the arbitrator's ruling, which stated the benefits scheme was discriminatory and breached the province's human rights code and the charter.

Story continues below advertisement

She said the parties now need to return to the bargaining table to discuss how they can make the benefits scheme compliant.

"If they can't resolve it at bargaining then they have to bring it back to an arbitrator," she said.

The B.C. Teachers' Federation is coming off a series of victories in the province's Supreme Court. In 2011 and again earlier this year, Justice Susan Griffin ruled the province acted unconstitutionally when it deleted hundreds of clauses over working conditions.

Both sides resumed their battle in the B.C. Appeal Court last month and regardless of the decision the case is expected to head to the Supreme Court of Canada.

20:29ET 12-11-14

Report an error
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