August
5, 2005
Opportunity
for a New Attitude
"Therefore,
in my opinion, the absolute ban of discussion on school
property during school hours did not minimally impair teachers'
rights. Few places would be more appropriate for a discussion
of the need for resources for public schools than a parent-teacher
interview dedicated to one child's education. The Supreme
Court noted in Pepsi, "[f]ree expression in the labour
context benefits not only individual workers and unions,
but also society as a whole" (at para. 35). The same
holds true for teachers. Their political expression benefits
society as a whole even where the concerns arise out of
a labour relations dispute."
2005BCCA0393,
para 68
Opposition
Education critic John Horgan has called on the Campbell
government to accept the majority decision of the BC Court
of Appeal and work to establish better relations with BC's
teachers. "More court time does not improve class time.
That's why the Campbell government should take this opportunity
to change the culture of division and put its fight with
teachers in the past," said Horgan. If following Horgan's
advice is too hard for the government, it might look to
the report
of Don Wright who was appointed to report on teacher
collective bargaining. In his December 2004 report he observed
that: "Even if fully implemented, these recommendations
will not significantly improve the state of bargaining unless
there is an attitudinal and behavioural change on both sides.
This will require a real dialogue - a genuine attempt to
arrive at mutual understandings - between teachers and the
employer group (i.e. government, trustees, and school administrators).
The sooner we start on that, the better." A good place
to demonstrate an attitudinal change is on the decision
of whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
on the teachers' Charter Rights as articulated in British
Columbia Public School Employers' Association v. British
Columbia Teachers' Federation (2005 BCAA 393).
Respected
arbitrator Don Monroe sided with the teachers, and in a
well reasoned award, supported their right to post information
on bulletin boards and hand out cards to parents regarding
class size. Two of three judges on the Court of Appeal agreed
with the arbitrator. Unfortunately, the dissenting judge,
The Honourable Mr. Justice Lowry, bluntly wrote: "Shortly
put, there is, in my respectful view, simply no place for
the use of our public schools as a platform for teachers
to advance political agendas." Lowry's reasons read
like a political diatribe rather than a legal refutation
of his colleagues' decision. He argued that "There
can be no question that the mandate of the School Boards
and of the teachers they employ must include the fostering
of a healthy education environment and the maintenance of
public confidence in the school system. It is a mandate
that, in my view, cannot be served by the teachers' use
of the schools to gain political advantage. Teachers in
the public school system must in this respect be in no different
position than if they were teaching in private schools."
His minority view stands in direct contrast to the majority
opinion which, in paragraph 50, stated:
"However,
while it may be reasonable to infer that the routine discussion
of class sizes contemplated by the BCTF to advance its political
agenda might tend to undermine public trust in the administration
of the school system, it is difficult to see how discussion
about class size and composition in relation to the needs
of a particular child by an informed and articulate teacher
could do anything but enhance confidence in the school system.
Like the arbitrator, I cannot discern any potential harm
from the posting of materials on a school bulletin board."
The
Campbell government and the Employers' Association might
be encouraged by Lowry's words and keep the dispute before
the court. If that happens, an important opportunity to
display a new attitude will be lost.
|
|
About
Me |
Mail Me | Links