Getting to Objectives Teacher Public School Employer Collective Bargaining, 2011

Transcription

1 Getting to Objectives Teacher Public School Employer Collective Bargaining, 2011 January 2011

2

3 Contents Introduction... 2 Preparation TCB 2011 in Context... 3 TCB 2011 Approach: Foundational Elements and Moving Forward Teacher Public School Employer Collective Bargaining Themes Appendix A: Legislation, Litigation in Detail: Implications for Bargaining Appendix B: BCPSEA Survey: Bargaining Objectives Appendix C: Scope of Teacher Bargaining Appendix D: BCPSEA TCB 2011 Preparation Timeline Appendix E: BCTF Bargaining Plan Appendix F: BCPSEA November 26, 2010 Letter to BCTF P a g e

4 Introduction The collective agreement between the British Columbia Teachers Federation (BCTF) representing the province s public school teachers, and the BC Public School Employers Association (BCPSEA) representing the province s 60 public boards of education, expires on June 30, Collective bargaining has three distinct phases preparation, negotiation and administration. Preparation for Teacher Collective Bargaining 2011 (TCB 2011) is well underway. It is guided by key learnings from previous rounds and the realities we face in meeting the needs of the public education system for the future. Given the time between agreements and the current realities and challenges within our system, TCB 2011 will be quite different from previous rounds and it is important to understand what has changed since the last round of bargaining in Bargaining direction, including broad/specific objectives, are approved by BCPSEA Trustee Representatives at the BCPSEA Representative Council in January Getting to Objectives: Teacher Public School Employer Collective Bargaining 2011 is a resource document intended to provide a foundation for the upcoming round of bargaining and assist employers in the establishment of bargaining objectives. Preparation 2011 TCB 2011 is facilitated through the following general structures and processes. Preparation and Consultation in Detail In preparation for the upcoming round of bargaining, BCPSEA has undertaken a series of data and information gathering activities to inform our collective decisions now and provide an informational resource for the bargaining table processes. In addition to the activities adopted by BCPSEA, some boards and district staff have undertaken initiatives to further inform the preparation phase. The challenge when preparing for collective bargaining generally, and provincial bargaining in particular, is to identify and assess the issues central to a constituent community. It is for that reason we have adopted a variety of approaches. Each activity on its own has its advantages and disadvantages. The initiatives, when taken together, provide as complete a picture as possible and serve as a basis for continued dialogue. Initial Regional Meetings, September October 2010 Nine regional meetings were held across the province, attended by trustees and district staff. Matters discussed included BCPSEA services and functions, support staff and teacher bargaining, and discussion of the current bargaining context and climate. With respect to teacher public school employer collective bargaining 2011, BCPSEA posed the following three questions: 1. What collective agreement changes and/or additions need to be achieved during the upcoming round of bargaining? 2 P a g e

5 2. What concerns or cautions, either local or provincial, do you have going into the upcoming round of bargaining? 3. What questions do you have that need to be answered prior to the start of bargaining? The answers to these questions provided the foundation for the BCPSEA Survey: Bargaining Objectives distributed to Trustee Representatives, Superintendents, Secretary Treasurers and HR Contacts in October 2010 and will be discussed further in this paper. BCPSEA Symposium, November 2010 Liaison and dialogue with Symposium attendees to further discuss the direction of bargaining, in the context of the BCTF local bargaining initiative and government educational initiatives, and in preparation for the Representative Council in January BCPSEA Annual General Meeting and Representative Council, January 2011 AGM 2011 will be integrated with a Representative Council Teacher Public School Employer Collective Bargaining Conference 2011: K-12 Public Education and Employment, a Future Focussed Dialogue to discuss the BCPSEA broad and specific bargaining objectives, as developed throughout the collective bargaining preparation phase. The broad and specific bargaining objectives will be the foundation for the bargaining proposals to be exchanged at the table. TCB 2011 in Context It will have been five years since the BCTF and BCPSEA were involved in collective bargaining. The provincial agreement of 2006 was the first freely negotiated provincial agreement between the parties. The 2006 framework agreement between the BCTF and BCPSEA was the basis for continued work between the provincial parties, including the development of a more constructive relationship. These initiatives included: Weekly labour management meetings between BCPSEA and the BCTF, in which staff discussed and resolved labour relations issues arising across the province A series of mediations and settlements with respect to the implementation of the 2006 framework agreement Committees arising out of the agreement, including the Provincial Articles Housekeeping Committee, Rehabilitation Committee, Benefits Review Committee, and the Public Education Recruitment and Retention Support Committee Working Documents for each school district and local union across the province. As TCB 2011 approaches, 54 of the 60 Working Documents have been completed. As with most collective agreements, there were disputes that arose during the agreement s term. Some were resolved informally or in an expedited fashion, while others proceeded to arbitration. The difference between the K-12 public education sector and other sectors was that many of the disputes had a legislative or public policy origin. These disputes taxed the parties both provincially and locally. They also illustrate what can be characterized as the philosophical 3 P a g e

6 divide between the BCTF and the provincial government as it relates to public education policy and control over the public education system. These disputes include: Testing/accountability Professional autonomy Class size, composition and school organization There is no doubt that the current legislative context will remain a challenge as bargaining begins in early There are six pieces of legislation that continue to have employment and labour relations implications: Bill 18, Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act: reinstated K-12 public education as an essential service (August 2001) Bill 27, Education Services Collective Agreement Act: ended the province-wide teachers strike (January 2002) Bill 28, Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act: amended the School Act to establish a new public policy direction for public education in the province; set out substantive changes to the scope of collective bargaining by adding a number of provisions that placed limitations on the content of collective agreements; school organization matters to be determined by public policy rather than the bargaining process; a transitional interpretive process to identify and delete inconsistent provisions was also established in the legislation what became known as the Rice arbitration (January 2002) o o o o Public Education Labour Relations Act (PELRA) amended to remove workload, including, without limitation, class size from the list of items deemed to be provincial matters subject to provincial bargaining Bill 19, Education Services Collective Agreement Act: amended the School Act to clarify a matter arising out of Bills 27 and 28 and subject of a judicial review (what became known as the Shaw decision) of the arbitration arising out of Bill 28 referred to as the Section 27.1 Arbitration, the transitional process to ensure the collective agreement is consistent with the School Act amendments moving school organization matters into the School Act (April 2004) Bill 12, Teachers Collective Agreement Act: ended the second province-wide teachers strike, imposed a collective agreement on the parties but was the catalyst for an illegal province wide walk-out (October 2005) Bill 33, Education (Learning Enhancement) Statutes Amendment Act: provideed more structural rigour to the class size provisions in the School Act partially in response to the illegal strike (April 2006). There have been a series of court challenges launched by the BCTF as a result of the legislative initiatives listed above. The court challenge to Bills 27 and 28 may have the greatest implications from a bargaining perspective. The BC Supreme Court petition alleging violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was heard in November 2010 and a decision is expected in the spring. 4 P a g e

7 See Appendix A for a detailed discussion of Legislation, Litigation in Detail: Implications for Bargaining. PSEC Compensation Mandate The provincial government s 2010 net-zero mandate for negotiations means that public sector unions and employers must settle for two-year deals at no additional cost. Consider: More than 200,000 public sector workers are covered by contracts that expired between March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2010 Two-thirds of all public sector employees with agreements that expired in 2010 are now covered by negotiated agreements There have been 22 tentative and ratified agreements under the net zero mandate covering 124,887 employees in total; these include employees in most sectors including health, postsecondary institutions, transit and BC Hydro Negotiations are yet to occur with teachers, K-12 support staff, as well as other postsecondary institutions. Certain trends can be identified in the early settlements. Of the collective agreements ratified, most were done so by extending the existing contract by two years. The existing collective agreement language was rolled over and no compensation trade-offs occurred. However, some settlements did include net compensation trade-offs including: The BC Government Employees Union (BCGEU) representing over 29,000 public service workers and the BC Public Service Agency. The union bargaining committee made a decision to improve health care benefits. To do this they agreed to increase the annual deductible from $65 to $80 and obtained benefits for hearing aids, paramedical benefits and an increase from $100,000 to $250,000 for the lifetime maximum. The agreement reached between the Health Employers Association of BC and the Health Services and Support Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association of Unions. Trade-offs were made to extended health benefits the one-time annual deductible was increased from $25 to $100, the first time the deductible has been changed since Coverage of the prescription drug dispensing fee was capped at $9. The vision care benefit increased by $125 from $225 per person every 24 months to $350 per person every two months. These are just two examples of net compensation trade-offs made to address changing employee needs. For Mandate 2010, government determined that two year agreements with a net zero increase to total compensation were required in order to ensure vital public services are protected until the province s financial situation improves. Looking forward, this same mandate continues to apply to all outstanding collective agreements in this round of bargaining. Government remains committed to ensuring that all agreements are concluded within that mandate, and employee groups who have completed negotiations will expect a fair application of the mandate to groups still to bargain. 5 P a g e

8 The BCTF has stated that it intends to pursue compensation increases at the bargaining table for its 45,000 members. President Susan Lambert said that the goals, objectives and strategy to achieve this were worked out in early November An article in the BCTF Teacher magazine in April 2010 describes the mandate and impending negotiations as follows: The government has committed to continue collective bargaining within a net zero increase wage mandate. In other words, the collective bargaining process, a process typically utilized by public sector unions to increase wages, has no mandate to negotiate increases in wages. Good luck with those negotiations. In recent media interviews, the BCTF President has indicated additional objectives: but what we have identified as ways of improving this system right now, in this context in British Columbia, is by restoring the level of funding to what was in place about ten or 11 years ago and restoring the services to students that we have lost over this last decade. In this context we're talking about the number of teachers in schools, the number of nonenrolling teachers and classroom teachers, so that we can reduce the class size and we can provide the services that non-enrolling teachers provide for students, so that we can provide English-as-a-second-language services, so we can provide aboriginal education support services, so that we can provide counselling services, so we can provide teacher-librarian services. That's what we're talking about -- the numbers of teachers, and we can reduce the number of oversize classes and provide support for students with special needs. (CHNL Radio, Thursday, January 6, 2011) Teacher Public School Employer Bargaining Structure As we finalize bargaining direction and formulate our strategy, the subject of bargaining structure arises once again. Since 2000, there have been two major reviews into the teacher bargaining structure. In total, there have been five reviews of teacher bargaining since the advent of teacher public school employer bargaining in the late 1980s. At present, the BCTF has indicated a desire to return to local board of education local teacher union bargaining (albeit coordinated and controlled centrally by the BCTF), while the employer community has expressed concerns about such an approach given our collective experiences to date. The most recent reviews of bargaining structure included the Wright Commission and the Ready Industrial Inquiry Commission. The latter was the framework for the success of Wright Commission Rooted in the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, the review process began with a terms of reference report to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour from Don Wright, a respected senior civil servant and former deputy Minister of Education. In his report, Wright made a number of points instructive for the upcoming round of bargaining: In summary, the past sixteen years of teacher collective bargaining have not resulted in a happy legacy No party seems to believe that the existing structure, unchanged can lead to successful collective bargaining in the future. 6 P a g e

9 the parties believe it is extremely unlikely that a collective agreement can be reached without major changes to the existing structure, and it would be useless to even consider trying before those changes are made. Wright proposed a unique model in his December 2004 report. While accepted by some groups with an interest in public education labour relations, the BCTF rejected Wright s conclusions. Ready Commission Arbitrator/Mediator Vince Ready played two roles between 2005 and Initially appointed in 2005 to facilitate the next round of collective bargaining between the BCTF and BCPSEA, he was called upon to facilitate the end to the BCTF 2005 illegal strike. Mr Ready s January 2006 Interim Report commented upon the history and status of collective bargaining: Although the history of local bargaining before 1994 was fraught with disputes and other difficulties, the evidence is overwhelming that the parties have not conducted meaningful negotiations in the decade since the Public Education Labour Relations Act established the present bargaining structure. It is clear that, unless both sides are committed to collective bargaining, the process will be fruitless no matter what system is adopted or legislated. As a starting point, all parties must recognize this failure to engage in meaningful negotiations. This will require them to establish a realistic bargaining agenda and then commit to concluding collective bargaining within realistic timeframes. These are basic steps in the collective bargaining process, but they have been sadly lacking between these parties. It is trite to say that free collective bargaining carries with it the responsibility to make it work. That responsibility lies mainly with the parties. That said, I will continue to study other bargaining structures that may provide a workable variation or alternative to the present system. Mr Ready s April 2006 Interim Report #2 for Transitional Negotiations provided guidelines for the coming round of collective bargaining. Those guidelines were adopted and resulted in the first negotiated collective agreement between the BCTF and BCPSEA. Mr. Ready concluded his work as Commissioner with the February 2007 Final Report for Collective Bargaining Options. The Report addressed the following three questions: 1. What matters, if any, should be concluded at local bargaining? 2. What matters should be concluded through a Provincial Master Collective Agreement? 3. What bargaining structure should be adopted in collective bargaining between the parties? The Report reflected upon the guidelines provided in the April 2006 Interim Report, noting: The parties agreed to implement these Recommendations and commenced collective bargaining. The reports I have received persuade me that the modifications to the 7 P a g e

10 traditional bargaining structure assisted the parties in avoiding breakdowns of bargaining, helped them move forward in a timely way and in ensuring that through the direct involvement of Government officials, the full mandate for achieving a collective agreement was understood and ultimately accepted. The principal credit for the achievement of the voluntary collective agreement should reside with the parties themselves. It was evident to me and to the Facilitator/Mediator that the parties were dedicated to the achievement of a collective agreement. Compromises were reached and solutions were found that allowed them to do so. I have, therefore, concluded that, in the circumstances, it is not the format or process of collective bargaining which will help achieve a collective agreement. Instead, it is necessary to provide support to the parties in their desire to achieve a collective agreement. The presence of a Facilitator/Mediator and the presence of a Government official provided that support. Having just achieved such a singular success, I am reluctant to recommend a wholesale change in the process of collective bargaining. Imposing solutions for collective bargaining which have worked in other jurisdictions may very well disturb the commitment of the parties which was evident during This would be contrary to the public interest. Instead, my recommendations have been forged on the experience of 2005 and I also have been conscious of the damage which might be done to the new relationship by singling out these parties for separate and unique treatment as compared to other participants in collective bargaining in the public sector in British Columbia. I will not make a separate recommendation about bargaining issues locally. If the parties in collective bargaining decide that certain issues should be decided at the local level that is up to them to decide. BCPSEA has had a series of meetings with the BCTF on the structure issue. In November 2010 we proposed that we move away from the debate over local vs. provincial and focus on the matters at issue, the nature of those matters and investigate the appropriate approach: Public education in BC has a bargaining construct with centralized bargaining agents and provincial compensation mandates, continuing down the path toward a greater degree of common terms and conditions of employment. There continue to be, however, provisions that can be characterized as hold-overs from the pre-provincial bargaining period. Some of the provisions have been modified through the mid-contract modification process. This may necessitate a unique process to address these issues. Given this, we propose that the provincial parties meet to discuss the most effective approach to this round of bargaining without a predetermined process outcome. This approach will ensure that we can tailor any solution to the actual issues. We further propose that the parties should seek to ensure any process for collective bargaining: is constructive for both parties minimizes the possibility of disruption and harm to local relationships 8 P a g e

11 is sustainable for both parties is cost effective with limited duplication of effort and cost is efficient is best able to address issues unique to one district or region. In order to begin this process, one possible approach would be for the provincial parties to: identify all matters at issue identify matters unique to one district or region develop a process to address such maters subject to the principles above. We further propose that, for the upcoming round of collective bargaining, the BCTF and BCPSEA together review the February 2007 Final Report for Collective Bargaining Options and incorporate the process options that the parties believe will facilitate bargaining. We attach the relevant sections as an appendix. At the time of publication of this paper the parties have not engaged in further discussions. The General Negotiation Framework BCPSEA is a multi-employer association and accredited bargaining agent for the province s 60 boards of education. With respect to collective bargaining and developing a bargaining mandate, BCPSEA has to balance two sets of interests the interests of the 60 boards of education as employers with the interests of government as the funder and maker of public policy to the extent that public policy directions/initiatives have employment implications. As part of the TCB 2011 preparation process, BCPSEA has met with trustees and district staff in a series of individual or group meetings to: begin a dialogue that informs the preparation phase and establishes a sound foundation for the development of bargaining objectives. This dialogue has provided the basis for a review of the bargaining foundation the General Negotiation Framework (GNF). Since 2000, BCPSEA has adopted a Teacher Collective Bargaining Project Plan as the planning foundation for each round of bargaining. Central to the Teacher Collective Bargaining Project Plan is the GNF. The GNF articulates the general agreement on what needs to be done in a particular round of bargaining and provides a filter to assess the union s proposals. 9 P a g e

12 General Negotiation Framework: The foundation for the negotiation of terms and conditions of employment in general terms, the critical areas of focus. The GNF is the framework within which objectives are set and proposals and counter-proposals are considered. Bargaining Objectives: What each employer is seeking to achieve in this round of negotiations. Objectives are divided into Broad Bargaining Objectives and Specific Bargaining Objectives. The broad objectives set out in general terms what an employer is seeking to achieve, while the specific objectives are what an employer is seeking to achieve on an issue by issue basis. Specific objectives have varying degrees of importance and priority. These objectives provide the basis upon which Bargaining Proposals to be exchanged at the bargaining table are developed. Bargaining Mandate: Codifies the bargaining authority necessary for a bargaining team to bargain a collective agreement. In 2000, the first GNF had four principles: 1. The costs of employment must be compatible with the government s funding priorities and school boards ability to pay. 2. The orderly introduction of change and the ability of school boards to adapt to evolving educational priorities and needs is necessary to maintain a responsive public education system. 3. The enhancement of relations between union and management, both locally and provincially, is essential for continued industrial stability and effective workplaces. 10 P a g e

13 4. With respect to the terms and conditions of teachers employment, the sector is transitioning from a series of local agreements to a provincial collective agreement. This reduces the number of local agreements and the variety of provisions in those agreements. In 2005, the GNF from 2000 was reviewed and confirmed, and specific objectives and proposals for 2005 were then developed. Given the short period of time between the conclusion of the 2005 round and the commencement of the 2006 round, the 2005 GNF was essentially continued but with less emphasis on the fourth broad objective re standardization. The GNF and the Collective Agreement: The Scope of Change As part of TCB 2011, when the GNF has been reviewed, amended (as required) and validated, broad bargaining objectives can be established. When establishing bargaining objectives and reviewing the current collective agreement provisions within the context of the GNF, potential areas of focus can be generally categorized as either: Efficient resource allocation Effective service delivery. Efficient resource allocation arises from the current fiscal climate, the provincial nature of public sector collective bargaining, the government s interest in public education costs, and the need to ensure that resources are directed to the provision of educational programs in a manner that does not create unnecessary duplications of effort. Effective service delivery recognizes that there are increasing service delivery expectations despite finite resources. These two elements provide the foundation for the development of objectives and, when the objectives have been finalized, the development of bargaining proposals. The GNF and these two areas of focus will be used for assessing union proposals and for conducting the negotiations from the employer s perspective. 11 P a g e

14 Efficient Resource Allocation A. Targeted amendments/limited application initiatives within this category are targeted amendments that deliver immediate cost savings but impact only a portion of the workforce. While the history of achieving efficient resource allocation changes across large public sector groups generally has been negative, this type of change is achievable inasmuch as the issues involved often represent workplace inequities (i.e., superior benefits, red-circled rates, etc.) that benefit a limited number of employees. B. Structural change/limited application initiatives within this category alter an ongoing fundamental cost element in the collective agreement but have a limited impact, if any, on current employees (changes apply to new employees only). Such changes deliver savings over time, and often do not affect current employees. C. Structural change/universal application initiatives in this category alter an ongoing fundamental cost element in the collective agreement and impact on the workforce in general. Such changes deliver immediate savings that can be substantial but are the most difficult to achieve. Effective Service Delivery A. Collective agreement consistency issues these issues relate to eliminating current provisions in the collective agreement that have become redundant due to legislative initiatives (Employment Standards Act, Labour Relations Code, School Act, etc.). Many of these issues are of high priority, as the carry over of the language into a new collective agreement may reactivate the clause regardless of the legislation that rendered the clause redundant. Many of these changes were completed through the post-2006 Working Document process. B. Collective agreement administration issues these issues relate to current provisions that have proven to be ineffective and/or cumbersome and/or unclear. In some cases the lack of clarity has quantifiable financial implications to our members. C. Service delivery enhancement issues these issues relate to current provisions that have proven to impede our capacity to deliver quality educational programs and services in a timely way. While the GNF is the foundation for bargaining, BCPSEA, in consultation with employers, will consider how much change should be pursued in the upcoming round of bargaining The following categories are used to assist in determining the pace and impact of change to be pursued in any given round of bargaining. Approaches and the scope of change are strategic choices, given the: Relative importance or weight given to each of the principles of the GNF (described above) what is important and why; what are the priorities Collective bargaining environment and context Relationship between the parties Nature of the bargaining objectives Economic climate and tools available to effect change within the mandate. BCPSEA will review identified elements of potential change and consider the potential for change given the factors listed above. 12 P a g e

15 TCB 2011 Approach: Foundational Elements and Moving Forward It has been close to 20 years since provincial bargaining was established. Since the last round, however, it has become clear that the accepted approach for both provincial parties when managing common issues has been a provincial approach. The collective agreement now contains the following provincially negotiated provisions: 1. Term, Continuation and Renegotiation 2. Recognition of The Union 3. Membership Requirement 4. Local and BCTF Dues Deduction 5. Committee Membership 6. Grievance Procedure 7. Leave for Provincial Contract Negotiations 8. Legislative Change 9. Salary 10. Teacher On Call Pay and Benefits 11. Salary Determination for Employees in Adult Education 12. EI Rebate 13. Registered Retirement Savings Plan 14. Salary Indemnity Plan Allowance 15. Reimbursement for Personal Property Loss 16. Optional Twelve-Month Pay Plan 17. Pay Periods 18. Reimbursement for Mileage and Insurance 19. Benefits 20. Category Resignation 22. Seniority 23. Alternate School Calendar 24. Preparation Time 25. Middle Schools 26. Non-Sexist Environment 27. Harassment/Sexual Harassment 28. Portability of Sick Leave 29. Compassionate Care Leave In addition, we have seen provincial language with respect to issues such as mileage, extended health benefits and preparation time, which set out a provincial framework that was then tailored as required to address local uniqueness or specificity. Recent issues such as class size disputes, freedom of expression, and summer school inclusion have also been addressed in a coordinated fashion by the provincial parties. The result has been a limit on duplication of effort, little or no playing one employer off against another whipsawing and the effective utilization of resources and the resulting consistency of process, outcomes, and implementation. 13 P a g e

16 As articulated in our November 2010 letter and proposal to the BCTF the answer to the age-old question of process is not, in fact, local bargaining or provincial bargaining (the text of the letter can be found at Appendix F). The answer is actually a provincial approach that respects and recognizes true local nuances in a way that is not wasteful or inefficient. Internal Planning and Resourcing BCPSEA Resources Current organizational resources will be reviewed to ensure optimum resources are available to serve all functions of the organization as negotiations commence and continue. The BCPSEA bargaining team will consist of a core group to be supplemented and supported by subject matter and regional experts as required. The team will have resources and support personnel from both administrative and research functions as well as a representative from the Board of Directors (Trustee) and a representative from government. The team will be finalized following the Representative Council in January Employment Data and Analysis System (EDAS) EDAS will serve as an integral resource in all phases of collective bargaining. BCPSEA will establish internal processes for facilitating the flow of information between EDAS and the BCPSEA bargaining team and other stakeholders as required. Integration of Public Policy Initiatives As an employers association, we need to balance the interest of boards of education as employers with those of the government as the maker of public policy. The compensation mandate, typically referrred to as the PSEC Mandate, and the education policy initiatives that have employment implications need to be integrated into the bargaining plan and processes. The current dialogue and liaison relationships with government need to develop and continue, to ensure the integration of government educational initiatives into bargaining planning, proposal development, and communications initiatives in order to achieve the best result and limit the possibility of disruptions. Communications Plan A comprehensive communications plan is being developed and refined in order to ensure optimal communications between and amongst all relevant stakeholders in the collective bargaining process. It is also important to ensure the messages across the employer community are as aligned as possible at all times. In addition to a traditional media management strategy, the communication plan for TCB 2011 will also include strategies for the monitoring and use of social media vehicles. BCTF Liaison BCPSEA will remain engaged with the BCTF as bargaining approaches. We will continue to build upon the relationships established over the term of the collective agreement through initiatives such as weekly labour management meetings. BCPSEA 14 P a g e

17 intends to do everything within its control to ensure this round of bargaining is as efficient and functional as possible. Focus and Resource Groups Focus and resource groups will be established to support and inform the bargaining team as bargaining proceeds. These groups will consider the educational and operational viability of various options throughout bargaining. They will communicate through a variety of media in order to function in the most effective and efficient means possible. Proposal Development Proposals will be developed by the BCPSEA bargaining team. Such proposals will be developed consistent with BCPSEA bargaining objectives and the K-12 Public Education Sectoral Collective Bargaining Plan Teachers, the plan submitted to PSEC at the commencement of bargaining. BCPSEA and BCTF proposals will be vetted by focus and resource groups as required to ensure they are operationally and educationally sound. 15 P a g e

18 Teacher Public School Employer Collective Bargaining Themes 2011 The initial regional meetings held in September October 2010 led to the identification of certain themes that began to inform our preparatory work. The BCPSEA Survey: Bargaining Objectives defined those themes and asked respondents to rate the importance and the degree of change required for each theme. The survey also canvassed respondents views on themes in addition to those identified at the regional meetings and other bargaining related matters, such as bargaining structure and collective agreement standardization. A detailed analysis of the preliminary survey results is found at Appendix B. The final survey results when taken together with the other data/information gathering efforts will provide direction and context in setting the broad bargaining objectives The general bargaining themes can be grouped into three broad categories as follows: Category 1: Employee growth, development, and professional engagement Current methods of evaluation of teachers performance are regulated by collective agreement provisions that are remarkably similar among BC school districts: This similarity is largely attributable to the highly coordinated local bargaining on the part of the BCTF in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Up until that time the evaluation of teachers performance was set out in the School Act. Once the BCTF began to bargain collectively, it negotiated into the resulting collective agreements only select desirable provisions of the processes previously contained in the School Act. Current collective agreement provisions include significant procedural requirements and protections for the teacher, while significantly hampering the ability of administrators to perform meaningful performance assessment. Indeed, those collective agreement provisions are focused on protecting the employment of under-performing teachers while ignoring the developmental needs of individual teachers or creating a contemporary link to overall organizational objectives. This contractual scheme was not a performance evaluation for growth and development regime but rather a process leading to dismissal. The discussion of Professional Growth, Development, Engagement and Mentorship processes should include consideration of alternate teacher evaluation structures that are cyclical, developmentally focused, and include measures of accountability and professional development that is linked to organizational objectives. Category 2: Compensation Currency The teacher compensation system is a composite of a variety of elements negotiated, developed and, in some cases, legislated at various times. Specifically: 16 P a g e

19 The service/education grid system has been the norm since the early part of the last century and has been modified in successive bargaining attempts. Most recently in 2006 an effort was made to harmonize salary grids to address recruitment and retention imperatives a degree of standardization with respect to base salaries across the province, including allowances for matters such as geographic area, positions of special responsibility and specialist positions. Teacher on Call pay and benefits were the subject of the 2005 back-to work settlement arising out of the illegal strike. Teacher benefits in their present form date back to the rounds of local bargaining in the 1990s. In the 2006 round of bargaining, a joint BCTF BCPSEA committee was charged with examining benefits. The extent to which benefits are provided in a manner that is aligned with compensation, is modern, and reflective of the current realities of benefit management is the natural next step of the committee s work. Like the public sector generally the K-12 public education sector is operating with a particular compensation mandate. There are matters within the compensation currency theme that can and should be addressed, however. Category 3: Employment and Sectoral Change While it is a truism that we are always in a state of change, a number of drivers necessitate a considered review of the nature of the change and the employment implications generally, and terms and conditions of employment implications specifically. The nature of work and the nature of those doing the work invite continued discussion and, in particular, focused discussion during bargaining. The message is to examine the process, structures and practices grounded in the collective agreement through the lens of sectoral change: Workforce demographics: Terms and conditions of employment are negotiated at a particular time with the parties best estimate that the agreement can cover a variety of circumstances and realities. Terms can become stale or inconsistent with workplace realities. Are there imperatives that arise from the demographic shift? Alignment of public policy initiatives: Public education is dynamic and is challenged to be responsive. The processes, procedures, and systems included in the collective agreement play a role in facilitating such responsiveness. Alignment of the hours of work, work day, work year and educational programing. Survey Summary When reviewing any of the themes and the observations that underlie them, it is important to put them in a collective bargaining context. Not every employment matter has a collective agreement/collective bargaining response. While the collective agreement is the central document that regulates the relationships between unions and employers, some of the matters have other responses. For each theme, in addition to rating the importance of each of the themes, respondents also identified the degree of change required to enable districts individually and the educational 17 P a g e

20 system as a whole to deliver quality education programs to students. Upon the setting of the broad bargaining objectives, responses to the degree of change required will assist BCPSEA in establishing specific bargaining objectives both to achieve the bargaining goals of districts and to respond to bargaining proposals put forward by the BCTF. Respondents also clearly stated that BCPSEA should continue to seek to standardize collective agreement provisions. While responses to the question of areas of the collective agreement on which to focus were varied, the general consensus was to focus on working conditions that do not require differentiation due to geographic area or unique and distinct circumstances within a school district. Every section of the collective agreement has presented workplace issues for respondents to the survey. Section F Professional Rights was the most often-cited section, followed by Section D Working Conditions, Section E Personnel Practices and G Leaves of Absence, which tied as the second most cited sections. Section C Employment Rights was cited almost as often as Sections D, E and G. Section A The Collective Bargaining Relationship and Section B Salary and Economic Benefits presented relatively fewer workplace issues for respondents. While what has become known as 21 st Century Learning or individualized learning continues to evolve and districts continue to move forward in contemplating and implementing educational initiatives designed to achieve personalized learning, respondents identified provisions of the current collective agreement which will need to change in order to successfully implement contemplated 21 st century learning initiatives. Respondents identified the following areas in decreasing order of frequency: Instructional hours/school day Class size and composition Professional development and in-service Post and fill teacher selection criteria Teacher autonomy Community facilitators in the classroom Local school calendar Community based instruction Graduation requirements. The survey also sought to affirm the previous survey results regarding the BCTF initiative to return all items except salary, benefits, hours of work, and paid leaves to local bargaining. Respondents once again overwhelming stated that bargaining with the BCTF should remain a provincial process coordinated by BCPSEA, citing many of the same responses as had been provided in the survey from spring P a g e

21 Appendix A: Legislation, Litigation in Detail: Implications for Bargaining The legislative amendments in 2002 amended the School Act to add class size and composition, staffing levels, and ratios to the items listed in section 27(3) which must not be included in a teachers collective agreement. At the same time, Bill 28 amended the Public Education Labour Relations Act (PELRA) to remove workload, including, without limitation, class size from the list of items deemed to be provincial matters subject to provincial bargaining. Arbitrator Rice was appointed to determine which provisions of the collective agreement were contrary to the additions to section 27. He determined that all provisions relating to the newly added items in 27(3) must be removed, even if they only dealt with the manner and consequences of the exercise of a board s discretion in relation to those items. The Rice award was judicially reviewed by Mr. Justice Shaw who overturned the decision, finding that sections 27 and 28 of the School Act should be interpreted to allow parties to negotiate the manner in which a board exercises power or discretion and the consequences flowing from that exercise in relation to some of the matters listed in section 27(3) of the Act. In response, the government tabled Bill 19, Education Services Collective Agreement Act to reinstate the collective agreement provision deletions ordered by Arbitrator Rice and added subsection (3) to section 28 of the School Act, purportedly clarifying the application of section 28. In April 2004 BCPSEA sought a legal opinion concerning the meaning and effect of Bill 19. The advice the association received was that section 4 of Bill 19 (the proposed new section 28(3) of the School Act) appeared to be intended to reverse that portion of the judgment of Mr. Justice Shaw which determined that the amendments to section 27(3) of the School Act were to be read as being subject to the provisions of section 28(1) of the School Act. As a result, it became the view of BCPSEA that while the parties may bargain the manner in which boards of education may exercise certain powers or discretions, or the consequences flowing therefrom, they may not do so in respect of any of the subject matter contained within section 27(3). We were not advised otherwise by government. The parties commenced bargaining for a new provincial collective agreement in November The BCTF tabled proposals on manner and consequences in mid-september 2005; the parties did not have an opportunity to discuss the proposals at the bargaining table. In early October 2005, Bill 12, Teachers Collective Agreement Act legislated a collective agreement between the parties, which rolled over the previous provincial agreement with an expiry date of June 30, Bargaining for the next collective agreement commenced on April 11, On April 22, 2006, the government introduced Bill 33, Education (Learning Enhancement) Statutes Amendment Act, which was a direct response to the BCTF request for legislation on class size and class composition. It included extensive processes that relate to the manner in which class size and composition is determined and also provided for consequences for school districts that do not comply with the legislation. 19 P a g e

22 At the beginning of May, the BCTF stated at the bargaining table that it expected a serious settlement proposal at the next session and that it wanted the proposal to include issues of class size, composition, and staffing ratios. On May 10, 2006 the BCTF tabled a comprehensive manner and consequences proposal in relation to staffing, class size and composition, integration of students with special needs, and support for ESL students. On May 23, 2006, the Deputy Minister of Education provided direction to BCPSEA concerning BCTF proposals dealing with manner and consequences. He recounted the events that took place after Bills 27 and 28 were enacted, confirming that the purpose of Bill 19 (and the Ministry of Labour s belief of the purpose) was to restore government s original policy decision in Bills 27 and 28 to clearly exclude provisions on manner and consequences in relation to items listed in s. 27(3) from the scope of bargaining. He stated that the policy decisions underlying Bills 27 and 28 (which were restored by Bill 19) were to limit the scope of bargaining to remove all class size and class composition language, including the process language known as manner and consequences. In late May, with this direction in mind, BCPSEA advised the BCTF that it was not interested in manner and consequences language and that, in any event, the association considered those proposals to be contrary to section 27 of the School Act. In early June, the BCTF filed a complaint with the Labour Relations Board (LRB) that BCPSEA had failed to bargain in good faith. On June 15, 2006 the LRB issued its decision that BCPSEA had not engaged in bad faith bargaining when it held to its position that it would not bargain manner and consequences. The LRB did not decide whether the BCTF proposals on manner and consequences were contrary to the School Act. On June 30, 2006, the parties reached a five year collective agreement without the inclusion of manner and consequences language. In 2010, the BCTF constitutional challenge of Bills 27 and 28 made its way to BC Supreme Court. Legal arguments were exchanged prior to oral argument, which was scheduled in November On July 16, 2010, the Attorney General provided its initial written argument to the BCTF. The Attorney General s argument contained submissions on the government s view of the impact of Bills 27 and 28, and Bill 19, on s. 28 of the School Act and the issue of manner and consequences. Specifically, the Attorney General took the position that Bill 19 was not intended to amend or repeal section 28 of the School Act, which had been interpreted by Mr. Justice Shaw as allowing bargaining with respect to the manner and consequences of the exercise of power or discretion for matters under section 27(3). The Attorney General argued that the addition of section 28(3) in Bill 19 would have been much more clearly worded if this was the government s intention. The Attorney General stated that section 28 of the School Act preserved the pre-existing right of teachers to collective bargaining concerning the manner and consequences of the exercise of a discretion or power given to the boards of education with respect to the determination of class size or class composition. Further, the Attorney General argued that any briefing notes or other documents that suggested otherwise were confused or mistaken and did not represent the government s position. The Attorney General noted that only Ministers or the Attorney General can state the legal position of government and public servants, unless they are speaking with the express or implied 20 P a g e

23 authorization of Cabinet or the Attorney General, cannot represent the legal position of government. Amendments to the School Act and PELRA since 2002, and the recent litigation, provide the backdrop against which 2011 BCTF BCPSEA bargaining is set. It is therefore necessary that we have a clear understanding of the statutory construct that regulates collective bargaining and agreements, and the government direction that arises from this understanding. The BCTF has advanced bargaining proposals in the past using what can be characterized as the shorthand expression of manner and consequences to describe them. It can be expected to see many of these proposals tabled again. The issue of bargainning proposals and the legislative structure leads to two considerations. The first is ability: does the legislative scheme permit bargaining on the matter tabled and, if so, the second copnsideration: even if the matter can be bargained, is it the position of the employer that the matter tabled is something they want in the collective agreement? This is an area of increasing complexity. The disposition of the court case may have implications for bargaining. 21 P a g e

24 Appendix B: BCPSEA Survey: Bargaining Objectives Preliminary Survey Results The initial regional meetings held in September October 2010 led to the identification of certain themes that began to inform our preparatory work. The BCPSEA Survey: Bargaining Objectives defined those themes and asked respondents to rate the importance and the degree of change required for each theme. The survey also canvassed respondents views on themes in addition to those identified at the regional meetings, and other bargaining related matters such as bargaining structure and collective agreement standardization. The final survey results will provide direction and context in setting the broad bargaining objectives. The general bargaining themes can be grouped into three broad concepts as follows, accompanied by the survey results of the general bargaining themes. Concept 1: Employee Growth, Development and Professional Engagement Theme: Teacher Professional Autonomy within a Public Education Structure The degree of control extended to teachers and the extent to which that control has an impact on facilitating change and development. Importance: Not at all important Not important Neutral Important Extremely important 0.9% 0.9% 10.1% 52.3% 35.8% Degree of Change Required: 12.4% No change required 61.9% Review of components of collective agreement language to align with school district accountabilities and responsibilities such as provincial testing and district-wide assessments 44.8% Elimination of collective agreement professional autonomy language recognizing the parameters have now been set through provincial arbitration awards 22 P a g e

25 Theme: Performance Feedback, Growth and Recognition: The ability of districts, through the systems in place, to provide timely feedback to teachers, foster growth, and provide recognition. Importance: Not at all important Not important Neutral Important Extremely important 0.9% 0.9% 4.6% 49.1% 44.4% Degree of Change Required: 6.5% No change required 45.8% Introduce comprehensive collective agreement provisions to formalize processes for professional growth and mentorship 50.5% Re-focus professional development funding 65.4% Introduce an evaluation system that is more streamlined, timely and less procedurally onerous Concept 2: Compensation Currency Theme: Rationalization of Teacher on Call Pay and Working Conditions: Teachers on call are an integral component of the teaching workforce. Pay and working conditions for this group impact our ability to manage the system both from a financial and educational perspective. Importance: Not at all important Not important Neutral Important Extremely important 2.7% 7.1% 23.2% 41.1% 25.9% Degree of Change Required: 18.5% No change required 44.4% Simplification of Teacher on Call compensation with respect to consecutive days working in multiple assignments 52.8% Continued limitations on the ability of Teachers on Call to obtain or exercise seniority in areas such as call out and post and fill 23 P a g e

26 49.1% Recalibration of the discretion provided for Teacher on Call call-out, including the limitation of Teacher on Call rights to refuse call out, placement and removal from the Teacher on Call list and evaluation of Teachers on Call Theme: Harmonization and Modernization of Benefits The extent to which benefits are provided in a manner that is aligned with compensation, is modern, and reflective of the current realities of benefit management. Importance: Not at all important Not important Neutral Important Extremely important 1.9% 2.8% 29.6% 49.1% 16.7% Degree of Change Required: 13.3% No change required. 25.7% Increase employees contributions/sensitivity to benefit costs 73.3% Modernize benefit plans to current design and cost sharing 17.1% Enhance benefit plans in recognition of years of stagnant benefit provisions Theme: Continuation of the Harmonization of Teacher Salaries The degree of standardization with respect to base salaries across the province, including allowances for matters such as geographic area, positions of special responsibility, and specialist positions. Importance: Not at all important Not important Neutral Important Extremely important 4.6% 7.4% 29.6% 44.4% 13.9% Degree of Change Required: 21.8% No change required 18.8% Harmonize teacher salaries while protecting salaries in excess of harmonization levels 32.7% Target harmonization to defined categories of teachers, such 24 P a g e

27 as beginning or senior teachers or specialist teachers through the rationalization of specialist allowances 37.6% Full harmonization across the province, with the elimination of salaries above harmonization levels, except for districts and schools currently in receipt of the Remote and Rural allowance (LOU No. 12) Concept 3: Employment and Sectoral Change Theme: Responsiveness Public education is dynamic and is challenged to be responsive. The processes, procedures and systems included in the collective agreement play a role in facilitating such responsiveness. Importance: Not at all important Not important Neutral Important Extremely important 0.9% 0.0% 4.5% 42.7% 51.8% Degree of Change Required: 9.1% No change required. We have found and will continue to be able to find ways to work with the current agreement 58.2% Specific: areas can be identified that will allow introduction of current or proposed well-defined educational initiatives 48.2% Broad: generally thematic speaking to the purpose of the agreement or sections that, if amended, will allow introduction of educational initiatives during the term of the next collective agreement 12.7% Other, please indicate 25 P a g e

28 Theme: Adaptations of Teachers Hours of Work, Work Day, and Work Year: The ability of school districts to provide and adapt educational programs beyond the current hours of work, work day and work year. Importance: Not at all important Not important Neutral Important Extremely important 0.9% 0.9% 6.3% 45.9% 45.9% Degree of Change Required: 2.7% No change required 66.4% Flexibility to enable boards to offer instruction and services outside the traditional instructional hours. 28.2% Enhanced recognition of teachers duties outside the traditional instructional hours. 70.0% Restructuring and modernization of collective agreement provisions to reflect requirements of personalized learning. Theme: Selection and Assignment The ability of school districts to manage the selection and assignment of teachers to best meet the needs of the organization and the communities it serves. Importance: Not at all important Not important Neutral Important Extremely important 0.9% 0.0% 2.7% 27.3% 69.1% Degree of Change Required: 9.2% No change required 52.3% Revision of current posting and filling provisions to streamline processes and allow for greater recognition of individual teacher expertise 73.4% Restructuring of collective agreement provisions to allow the selection, assignment, and retention of teachers to align with the recognition of individual teacher expertise rather than the emphasis on years of service 26 P a g e

29 Appendix C: Scope of Teacher Bargaining Introduction British Columbia's current system of teacher collective bargaining, with its scope of bargaining matters, is the result of a series of policy decisions dating back to the late 1980s and substantially amended in On January 28, 2002, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act (PEFCA) was enacted, establishing a new public policy direction for public education in BC s K-12 public education sector. By amending section 27 of the School Act effective July 1, 2002, collective agreements may no longer contain provisions that restrict or regulate: class size and class composition case loads or teaching loads staffing levels or ratios, or the number of teachers employed by a board assignment of students to a class, course or program. Provisions of a teacher collective agreement that provide for such regulation or restriction are void and were to be deleted from the existing collective agreement. The PEFCA set out a transitional process to make the structural changes to the existing agreements by May 11, The deadline was subsequently extended to August 31, However, the terms and conditions which were in collective agreements at the time of the legislation, with respect to class size, etc., remained in effect for the school year. In place of collective agreement class size and composition provisions, the PEFCA added school district-wide average class size limits and individual class size limits to the School Act. On November 20, 2002 the BCTF filed a petition in BC Supreme Court for a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision arising out of the transition process to amend the collective agreement to make it consistent with the School Act amendments. The matter was heard in BC Supreme Court in November 2010 with a decision expected in Public sector collective bargaining occurs in a political environment and there is no clear distinction as to what matters, by their nature, are policy matters and what are terms and conditions of employment subject to collective bargaining. The political element, in part, contributes to efforts by the parties to make their case in public. Teachers and hospital employees, for example, usually frame their bargaining demands not in terms of improved compensation and better working conditions, but rather, in terms of improvements to the quality of education or health care. In a system of broad scope collective bargaining, the distinction between public policy matters and collective bargaining matters can become blurred, subject to a variety of motivations and interpretations. Now that the scope has been considerably narrowed, we must take into account the changes to the scope of bargaining when preparing for the next round. 27 P a g e

30 The following chart sets out the matters that may be the subject of collective bargaining and those that are now considered outside the scope of bargaining. The matters that are able to be bargained are divided into two categories: Provincial: The responsibility of the provincial parties and subject to negotiations between the BCTF and BCPSEA Local: Subject to local bargaining between individual boards of education and their respective teacher locals. Provincial Matters (Appendix 1) Out of Scope Local Matters (Appendix 2) Section A: The Collective Bargaining Relationship Access to Information Copy of Agreement Exclusions from the Bargaining Unit Expedited Arbitration Grievance Procedure Leave for Contract Negotiations Legislative Change Local/BCTF Dues Deduction Management Rights Membership Requirement No Contracting Out President s/officer Release Pro-D Chairperson Release Recognition of the Union Release for Local, BCTF, CTF, College of Teachers and Education International Business Right to Representation School Staff Committees Staff Orientation Staff Representatives Term and Renegotiation Troubleshooter Access to Information Access to Worksite Bulletin Board Internal Mail Local Negotiation Procedures Picket Line Protection Recognition of Union Teachers Assistants Use of School Facilities 28 P a g e

31 Section B: Salary and Economic Benefits Associated Professionals Automobile/Travel Allowance Benefits Coverage Board Payment of College Fees Category Addition Category Elimination Continuation of Benefits Death Benefits Employee and Family Assistance Program Experience Recognition First Aid Allowance General Benefits Group RRSP Housing Assistance Increment Date Isolation Allowance Moving/Relocation Allowance No Cuts in Salary and Benefits One Room School Allowance Part Month Payments and Deductions Part-time Employees Pay and Benefits Pay Periods Payment For Work Beyond Regular Work Year Personal Property Insurance Placement on Scale Positions of Special Responsibility Retirement Bonuses Salary Scale Summer School and Night School Payment Teacher in Charge Teachers on Call Pay and Benefits Trade, Technical and Work Experience Unemployment Insurance/SIF Rebate Payroll Deductions Purchase Plans for Equipment Self-Funded Leave Plans 29 P a g e

32 Section C: Employment Rights Dismissal and Discipline for Misconduct Dismissal Based on Performance Employment on Continuing Contract Part-Time Teachers Employment Rights Retraining Seniority Layoff Recall Severance Pay ToC Call Hiring Practices Section D: Working Conditions Availability of Teacher on Call Child Care for Work Beyond Regular Hours Class Size and Class Composition Correspondence Courses Duration of School Day Hearing and Medical Checks Home Education Hours of Work Inner City Schools Itinerant Teachers Mainstreaming/ Integration Mentor/Beginning Teacher Program Non-traditional Worksites Preparation Time Professional Teaching Staff Formula Regular Work Year for Teachers Services to Teachers Space and Facilities Supervision Duties Teacher on Call Working Conditions Technological Change Class Size and Class Composition Professional Teaching Staff Formula Mainstreaming /Integration 1. Hard numbers limiting placement of students Provisions that have numerical limitations for class sizes, class composition. 2. Hard numbers mandating teachers or other staff Provisions that prescribe a specific number of teachers or other staff; e.g., Non-enrolling/ESL Staffing Formulas, Base staff numbers, etc. 3. Processes that produce hard numbers Provisions that are formula driven and result in hard numbers of teachers or other staff both restrict and regulate a board s power to determine staffing levels ; they are therefore in conflict with s. 27 (3) (g) and are potentially in conflict with several other parts of s. 27 (3); e.g., school or district class size averaging, student/teacher ratios, etc. Extracurricular Activities Hazardous Materials Health and Safety Health and Safety Committee Local Involvement in Board Budget Process Staff Meetings Student Medication and Medical Procedures Teacher Involvement in Planning New Schools 30 P a g e

33 4. Case load/staffing load/teaching Load We draw a distinction between provisions dealing with numbers of students versus those relating to content and/or preparation. A provision which relates to the number of students that can be assigned to a teacher may not be bargained (e.g., maximum case load of x ). A provision which relates to the content of courses assigned to a teacher that is not in conflict with the legislation; e.g., number of preparations required, preparation time, etc. 5. Requirement to consult/recommend Provisions that require the board to consult with teachers either individually or in a committee, before classes are organized and/or students are assigned are regulating features and therefore in conflict with the legislation. 6. Criteria that must be considered Provisions which set criteria to be considered prior to determining school organization may also have the effect of regulating class sizes, and/or restricting the placement of one or more students in a class or program. 7. Conditions to be met prior to student 31 P a g e

34 Section E: Personnel Practices Criminal Record Checks Definitions Falsely Accused Employee Assistance Filling Vacant Positions Harassment Non-sexist Environment Offer of Appointment Parental Complaints Positions and Assignments referenced to Definition Posting Vacant Positions Resignation Sexual Harassment Violence Prevention in Schools placement A provision which sets one or more conditions that must be met prior to student being placed in a class or program restricts and regulates a board s power to assign a student to a class, course or program. 8. Human resources Provisions that call for certain resources to be provided when special needs students are integrated into a regular class may not be bargained if these resources can be seen to be human resources and therefore mandate staff. Board Policy Gender Equity No Discrimination Personnel Files Race Relations School Act Appeals Section F: Professional Rights Educational Change Professional Autonomy Professional Days (Non- Instructional) Professional Development: Funding School Accreditation Classroom Expenses Committees First Nations Curriculum Fund Raising Pro D Committee Women s Studies Section G: Leaves of Absence Provisions for all leaves of absence with respect to: o Pay o Benefits Administrative provisions o Banked Time Plan o LoA Committee 32 P a g e

35 Seniority Posting/Filling/Return from Time available ToC coverage o o o Energy Awareness Leave Notice Non- Contractual Items, Without Prejudice Bargaining Options The Public Education Labour Relations Act establishes, for bargaining purposes, the framework for what matters are considered provincial and those considered local. The BCTF and BCPSEA do not share the same view as to the operation of the provisions that direct the split of issues. With the advent of provincial bargaining in the early 1990s, the parties agreed to have all substantive items at the provincial table. In the December 2010 issue of NewsLink Express, we set out our views on the BCTF desire to return to local bargaining. At the end of the article an option was proposed, which we hope will form the basis for focused discussions on the matters at issue: Back to the Future: BCTF and the Search for Local Bargaining Continues Following is an example of a recent from a local teachers association to a school district (this was received by a number of districts): We strongly believe that local Boards of Education should be re-empowered to bargain local issues and address these with local solutions. Is the Board prepared to enter into a comprehensive dialogue with us with the ultimate goal of submitting a joint brief to the Ministry of Education and your bargaining agent, the British Columbia Public School Employers Association, supporting a realignment of the current limited split of issues that we are permitted to address and return to meaningful local bargaining? At the risk of repeating what is well known to most of us it is important, for illustrative purposes, to put the latest discussions regarding the approach and organization of bargaining in context. In a letter from BCPSEA to the BCTF, the association observed that the approach the parties adopt should be informed by the experiences and conclusions drawn from this course of events. With the 1987 organization of teacher union locals in each BC school district, teachers and boards of education experienced full scope collective bargaining between local school districts and teachers union locals of the BCTF. The BCTF has characterized the system of local bargaining as follows: What emerged was a system of co-ordinated local bargaining. Locals were the bargaining unit charged with the responsibility of negotiating a collective agreement with their school board. The BCTF developed the Collective Bargaining Handbook, with model clause language on every conceivable provision that teachers might wish to 33 P a g e

36 negotiate. Local bargaining teams were trained by the BCTF and supported by staff assigned to work with locals. Additional staff were hired to assist and new policies and procedures were put in place to support the new bargaining regime, including strike pay and assistance. The first round of full collective bargaining for teachers in 1988 continued to mobilize the excitement and energy of teachers that was generated in the sign-up certification campaign the year before. On November 28, 1988, Kitimat teachers began a 10-day strike before successfully concluding an agreement that included class-size maximums. Eleven other locals struck in the first round and others mobilized to achieve their objectives that became identified in the slogan, WHY NOT HERE? The important aspect of the experience of co-ordinated local bargaining was not that we did well we did. What was so very important about local bargaining was the high degree of democracy and member participation in decisions and the process of achieving local collective agreements. As a Federation officer in the first two rounds of local bargaining, I well remember my visits to locals and the high percentage of members who attended meetings, took part in activities, and supported their bargaining teams in their efforts to achieve improvements in teacher salaries, working conditions, and professional rights. The stories of local bargaining in the three rounds before provincial bargaining was imposed in 1994 constitute an exciting and dramatic period in the history of the BCTF. 1 The local bargaining experience (what came to be seen as highly patterned and centralized bargaining on the part of BCTF locals across the province) became the backdrop against which the next milestone was set. In 1992, the provincial government established the Korbin Commission, with a mandate to examine human resource practices in the public sector and propose a new framework of human resource management. The BCTF, in its submission to the Commission, made the following comments: Centralization is often seen as having negative consequences for the bargaining and representation process. These consequences include a reduction in the local flexibility and autonomy of both management and workers and a restriction of the scope of worker participation. As a result, the workers may become alienated and frustrated, and hence less productive and more prone to both official and unofficial strike action. Given the importance of negotiations with the district s teachers on matters that are critical to good school programs and practices, the heart of the trustees mandate would be taken away by centralization. It s not just bargaining. Proposals for centralization of this critical function really raise the question as to whether any meaningful role remains for trustees, or even for local boards as institutions. The BCTF also recommended a continuation of local bargaining: Collective Bargaining for teachers a right long withheld from them must be upheld and continued on the basis of direct negotiations with their employers, the school board in each district. 1 Novakowski, Ken. Teacher newsmagazine, BC Teachers Federation, April P a g e

37 In contrast, the employer community recommended forms of centralized bargaining. While the Korbin Commission did not recommend one particular model, the provincial government proceeded to enact the Public Education Labour Relations Act (PELRA) in PELRA required that the parties negotiate which matters would be dealt with at local bargaining tables and which matters would be negotiated provincially. In April 1995, the BCTF and BCPSEA completed the split of issues and all substantive issues, including monetary provisions, were placed at the provincial table. In 1995, 1996 and 1997, the parties modified the split of issues with four addenda, addressing unpaid leave (two addenda), selection of administrative officers, and professional development. Since the Korbin Commission, there have been three additional studies into K-12 public education collective bargaining. Don Wright s Commission to Review Teacher Collective Bargaining provided 12 recommendations, aligned with three key principles as identified by Dr. Wright: Teachers must have an effective voice in influencing the terms and conditions of their employment There must be sufficient transparency so that proper accountability can be established, and We need to find the ability to engage in a true dialogue about how to make a good public school system even better. Arbitrator/Mediator Vince Ready was Industrial Inquiry Commissioner, initially appointed in 2005, to facilitate the next round of collective bargaining between the BCTF and BCPSEA. Mr Ready s January 2006 Interim Report commented upon the history and status of collective bargaining: Although the history of local bargaining before 1994 was fraught with disputes and other difficulties, the evidence is overwhelming that the parties have not conducted meaningful negotiations in the decade since the Public Education Labour Relations Act established the present bargaining structure. It is clear that, unless both sides are committed to collective bargaining, the process will be fruitless no matter what system is adopted or legislated. As a starting point, all parties must recognize this failure to engage in meaningful negotiations. This will require them to establish a realistic bargaining agenda and then commit to concluding collective bargaining within realistic timeframes. These are basic steps in the collective bargaining process, but they have been sadly lacking between these parties. It is trite to say that free collective bargaining carries with it the responsibility to make it work. That responsibility lies mainly with the parties. That said, I will continue to study other bargaining structures that may provide a workable variation or alternative to the present system. Mr. Ready s April 2006 Interim Report #2 for Transitional Negotiations provided guidelines for the coming round of collective bargaining. Those guidelines were adopted and resulted in the first negotiated collective agreement between the BCTF and BCPSEA. 35 P a g e

38 Mr. Ready concluded his work as Commissioner with the February 2007 Final Report for Collective Bargaining Options. The Report addressed the following three questions: What matters, if any, should be concluded at local bargaining What matters should be concluded through a Provincial Master Collective Agreement, and What bargaining structure should be adopted in collective bargaining between the parties? The Report reflected upon the guidelines provided in the April 2006 Interim Report, noting: The parties agreed to implement these Recommendations and commenced collective bargaining. The reports I have received persuade me that the modifications to the traditional bargaining structure assisted the parties in avoiding breakdowns of bargaining, helped them move forward in a timely way and in ensuring that through the direct involvement of Government officials, the full mandate for achieving a collective agreement was understood and ultimately accepted. The principal credit for the achievement of the voluntary collective agreement should reside with the parties themselves. It was evident to me and to the Facilitator/Mediator that the parties were dedicated to the achievement of a collective agreement. Compromises were reached and solutions were found that allowed them to do so. I have, therefore, concluded that, in the circumstances, it is not the format or process of collective bargaining which will help achieve a collective agreement. Instead, it is necessary to provide support to the parties in their desire to achieve a collective agreement. The presence of a Facilitator/Mediator and the presence of a Government official provided that support. Having just achieved such a singular success, I am reluctant to recommend a wholesale change in the process of collective bargaining. Imposing solutions for collective bargaining which have worked in other jurisdictions may very well disturb the commitment of the parties which was evident during This would be contrary to the public interest. Instead, my recommendations have been forged on the experience of 2005 and I also have been conscious of the damage which might be done to the new relationship by singling out these parties for separate and unique treatment as compared to other participants in collective bargaining in the public sector in British Columbia. I will not make a separate recommendation about bargaining issues locally. If the parties in collective bargaining decide that certain issues should be decided at the local level that is up to them to decide. At a meeting in mid-september, BCTF representatives described how each local has different issues that need to be addressed, and different prioritization of those issues. This was followed by correspondence from the BCTF: 36 P a g e

39 I write regarding your letter of October 20 where you say we have not identified the specific items which will be bargained locally. In our September 14, 2010 letter to you we are clear that we wish to see all items other than salary, benefits, hours of work and paid leave bargained at the local level. Toward that goal, we requested that you meet with us for the purpose of negotiating a mid-contract modification. We conclude from your letter that you are not interested in renegotiating the split of issues through a mid-contract modification prior to the next round of bargaining. If our conclusion is in error, please advise. As evidenced by the commentary and conclusions of Mr. Ready, and the successful outcome of the 2006 round of bargaining, it is not the format or process of collective bargaining that determines its success. Rather, the attitude and commitment of the parties are the drivers of success. The collective agreement now contains the following provincially negotiated provisions: 30. Term, Continuation and Renegotiation 31. Recognition of The Union 32. Membership Requirement 33. Local and BCTF Dues Deduction 34. Committee Membership 35. Grievance Procedure 36. Leave for Provincial Contract Negotiations 37. Legislative Change 38. Salary 39. Teacher On Call Pay and Benefits 40. Salary Determination for Employees in Adult Education 41. EI Rebate 42. Registered Retirement Savings Plan 43. Salary Indemnity Plan Allowance 44. Reimbursement for Personal Property Loss 45. Optional Twelve-Month Pay Plan 46. Pay Periods 47. Reimbursement for Mileage and Insurance 48. Benefits 49. Category P a g e

40 50. Resignation 51. Seniority 52. Alternate School Calendar 53. Preparation Time 54. Middle Schools 55. Non-Sexist Environment 56. Harassment/Sexual Harassment 57. Portability of Sick Leave 58. Compassionate Care Leave. In addition to these matters, there are also 16 provincial letters of understanding on a variety of issues. Through the joint efforts of the respective BCTF/BCPSEA staff resources, the parties have been able to complete working collective agreement documents in 54 of the 60 districts. With this work as the foundation, and informed by the parties bargaining experiences and inquiries, BCPSEA proposed that the parties move beyond the discussion of bargaining forum to a discussion that identifies and seeks to address the matters at issue. The nature of the matters at issue, the strategic choices each party makes regarding the preparation/conduct of bargaining, and the degree of commonality that emerges will provide the necessary evidence as to what forum is appropriate, BCPSEA concluded. BCPSEA does not see that re-establishing what is a decades-old system of local board of education local teachers union bargaining and the resulting degree of duplication of effort, akin to the previously referenced BCTF characterization of the pre-1994 rounds of local bargaining, provides the most efficient means possible in a time when districts have sought to streamline processes in order to ensure the greatest possible resources are available at the school level. Public education in BC has a bargaining construct with centralized bargaining agents, provincial compensation mandates, provincial educational policy. The result of this has been a greater degree of common terms and conditions of employment in recent years. Even in the days of local bargaining, the BCTF maintained a high degree of control at each local table through the use of technology, communication and highly skilled BCTF provincial staff at most tables. There continue to be, however, provisions that can be characterized as holdovers from the pre-provincial bargaining period. Some of the provisions have been modified through the mid-contract modification process. This may necessitate a unique process to address these issues. BCPSEA suggested: Given this, we propose that the provincial parties meet to discuss the most effective approach to this round of bargaining without a predetermined process outcome. This approach will ensure that we can tailor any solution to the actual issues. We further propose that the parties should seek to ensure any process for collective bargaining: 38 P a g e

41 is constructive for both parties minimizes the possibility of disruption and harm to local relationships is sustainable for both parties is cost effective with limited duplication of effort and cost is efficient is best able to address issues unique to one district or region. In order to begin this process, one possible approach would be for the provincial parties to: identify all matters at issue identify matters unique to one district or region develop a process to address such maters subject to the principles above. Further BCPSEA proposed the parties again revisited what worked in 2006: that, for the upcoming round of collective bargaining, the BCTF and BCPSEA together review the February 2007 Final Report for Collective Bargaining Options and incorporate the process options that the parties believe will facilitate bargaining. Survey Themes and Observations Most strongly, respondents expressed the opinion that bargaining with the BCTF should remain a provincial process coordinated by BCPSEA. The overwhelming majority of responses to the survey question regarding a preference for local vs. provincial bargaining favoured retaining a single provincial bargaining structure, much the same as what has existed since its advent in the mid-1990s. One respondent observed that, teacher bargaining has been one of the most inquired into systems in our sector.and maybe we just have to get on with the model that Vince Ready suggested after the 2006 round. While a number of suggestions were made as to how the process might be coordinated or what the major issues could be, there was no support for a return to local bargaining between districts and their BCTF locals as had existed in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Two common concerns regarding a return to local bargaining also came out of the survey. The first was the ability of the BCTF to centrally control local bargaining, resulting in the opportunity to trade off one district against another during the process whipsawing. Many respondents gave examples of recent experiences. Individual school districts, especially those that were vulnerable, might concede to union demands. The gains made by the BCTF in one district would then be held up as the acceptable standard that all other districts would be expected to meet. Single issue concessions by individual districts could then be used against the others in a whipsaw strategy coordinated by the BCTF. It would be very difficult for a single district, whether large or small, to weather the resulting storm. Respondents noted that this 39 P a g e

42 divide and conquer strategy had been an effective tool for the BCTF during the early years of bargaining. It was recognized that the desire for local bargaining is, by and large, a strategic posture. The second common concern was the lack of appropriately trained and experienced staff in each district, with the time and resources to complete what could be a protracted bargaining process. There have been many changes in district human resources personnel over the past 20 years and few of the new staff, while skilled in their day to day roles, have had the opportunity to conduct significant bargaining. A lack of experience, training, time, and resources would once again leave individual school districts vulnerable to a coordinated and well resourced bargaining campaign by the BCTF. Centralization of the early 1990s has resulted in far fewer individuals with bargaining experience or interest. Beyond the basic structure of the bargaining process, respondents to the survey made a number of other observations and recommendations. There was a desire to see both greater flexibility and the long-term control of costs enhanced through changes to the collective agreement. Flexibility in this case was referenced as improvements to the ability of the employer to hire, schedule, and direct teachers in the best interests of student programs. This included mention by several respondents of the need to transition our school system, including the collective agreement, to a 21 st century learning model. Likewise, cost containment, or at least control of cost escalation, was a major theme raised by school districts. Examples included several references to the increasing and uncontrolled cost of benefits as well as the hidden cost of several past collective agreement changes. With tighter budgets on everyone s mind, the need for responsible changes to the collective agreement was seen as a priority. Although retaining provincial bargaining was favoured by virtually all respondents, there does appear to be a desire to see a process for addressing specific local issues. Many respondents identified specific local collective agreement clauses or practices that they feel need to be addressed during the coming round of bargaining. But how do you address the few minor local issues within the context of provincial bargaining? was a question asked by more than one respondent. A strategy to ensure truly local minor issues are not forgotten about will need to be considered based on the overall survey results. It was observed that the bargaining model is not truly a provincial one with a form of master agreement. While 2006 led to the standardization of more terms, which was necessary, many more need to be standard than need to be unique to a particular workplace. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly there was a generally positive tone to the responses as a whole regarding the desire of districts to enter bargaining and solve some of the perceived problems with the current collective agreement. Districts appear eager to begin preparing for bargaining and certainly ready to begin a serious debate on the goals and strategies that should be a part of the coming dialogue. 40 P a g e

43 Continuing Discussions The parties met again on June 14, 2010, with BCSPEA requesting that the BCTF provide more details of the BCTF bargaining plan, including process, timing, dispute resolution and essential services. The BCTF replied on July 6, 2010, providing BCPSEA with their full and complete bargaining plan as approved by the fall BCTF Representative Assembly. See Appendix Efor the BCTF Bargaining Plan. The parties met again on September 14, 2010, and have continued correspondence on the BCTF s Local Bargaining Initiative through the fall of On November 26, 2010, BCPSEA wrote a comprehensive letter to the BCTF, reflecting on the approach and organization of bargaining since 1987, including the introduction of local bargaining, the establishment and results of the Korbin Commission, Don Wright s Commission to Review Teacher Collective Bargaining and Vince Ready s Industrial Inquiry Commission. The letter concluded with a proposal for moving forward as bargaining approaches: With this work as the foundation, and informed by the parties bargaining experiences and inquiries, we propose that we move beyond the discussion of bargaining forum to a discussion that identifies and seeks to address the matters at issue. The nature of the matters at issue, the strategic choices each party makes regarding the preparation/conduct of bargaining, and the degree of commonality that emerges will provide the necessary evidence as to what forum is appropriate. We do not see that re-establishing what is a decades-old system of local board of education local teachers union bargaining and the resulting degree of duplication of effort, akin to the previously referenced BCTF characterization of the pre-1994 rounds of local bargaining, provides the most efficient means possible in a time when districts have sought to streamline processes in order to ensure the greatest possible resources are available at the school level. Public education in BC has a bargaining construct with centralized bargaining agents and provincial compensation mandates, continuing down the path toward a greater degree of common terms and conditions of employment. There continue to be, however, provisions that can be characterized as hold-overs from the pre-provincial bargaining period. Some of the provisions have been modified through the mid-contract modification process. This may necessitate a unique process to address these issues. Given this, we propose that the provincial parties meet to discuss the most effective approach to this round of bargaining without a predetermined process outcome. This approach will ensure that we can tailor any solution to the actual issues. We further propose that the parties should seek to ensure any process for collective bargaining: is constructive for both parties minimizes the possibility of disruption and harm to local relationships is sustainable for both parties is cost effective with limited duplication of effort and cost is efficient 41 P a g e

44 is best able to address issues unique to one district or region. In order to begin this process, one possible approach would be for the provincial parties to: identify all matters at issue identify matters unique to one district or region develop a process to address such maters subject to the principles above. We further propose that, for the upcoming round of collective bargaining, the BCTF and BCPSEA together review the February 2007 Final Report for Collective Bargaining Options and incorporate the process options that the parties believe will facilitate bargaining. We attach the relevant sections as an appendix. 42 P a g e

45 Excerpts from the School Act Related to Collective Bargaining Section 27(3) (3) There must not be included in a teachers collective agreement any provision (a) regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act, the courses of study, the program of studies or the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher, (b) restricting or regulating the assignment by a board of teaching duties to principals, vice-principals or directors of instruction, (c) limiting a board s power to employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act and the regulations, (d) restricting or regulating a board s power to establish class size and class composition, (e) establishing or imposing class size limits, requirements respecting average class (f) sizes, or methods for determining class size limits or average class sizes, restricting or regulating a board s power to assign a student to a class, course or program, (g) restricting or regulating a board s power to determine staffing levels or ratios or the number tethers or other staff employed by the board, (h) establishing minimum numbers of teachers or other staff, (i) (j) Section 78.1 restricting or regulating a board s power to determine the number of students assigned to a teacher, or establishing maximum or minimum case loads, staffing loads or teaching loads. (1) If a board satisfies the conditions under section 78 (3.1), a provision of a teachers collective agreement that limits or restricts, or purports to limit or restrict, the board s power to adopt and implement the school calendar approved under section 78 (3.1) for the school or the group of students concerned is void, but only to the extent that the provision limits or restricts the power in respect of that school or group of students. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), a provision of a teachers collective agreement is void to the extent that it limits or restricts, or purports to limit or restrict,, the poser of the board to establish, vary, extend, or amend, in respect of the school or group of students referred to in subsection (1), (a) the schedule of delivery of educational programs in a day of instruction, (b) the schedule of delivery of health services, social services and other support services under section 88, in a day of instruction, (c) the hours of the day, days of the week or months of the year on or within which educational programs are to be provided, or (d) the days on which teachers, or persons providing services referred to in paragraph (b), are scheduled to be available for instructional, non-instructional or administrative activities. 43 P a g e

46 Appendix D: BCPSEA TCB 2011 Preparation Timeline November Meetings and Events a. Dialogue, Information and Input Initial Regional Meetings, September October, 2010 Nine regional meetings held across the province, attended by trustees and district staff. Matters discussed included BCPSEA services and functions, support staff and teacher bargaining, including a discussion of the current bargaining context and climate, and a BCPSEA issues update. BCPSEA posed the following three questions: What collective agreement changes and/or additions need to be achieved during the upcoming round of bargaining? What concerns or cautions, either local or provincial, do you have going into the upcoming round of bargaining? What questions do you have that need to be answered prior to the start of bargaining? Discussion Resources, November-December The responses to these initial questions will form the basis of the next process on inquiry (survey, virtual meetings, focus groups). The information and themes gleaned from these processes will be incorporated into the Bargaining 2011 Draft Discussion Paper. The draft discussion paper will be vetted with the sector and finalized. The draft will be used to develop the Teacher-Public School Employer Bargaining Position Paper that will be the central resource to assist in the development of the BCPSEA broad and specific bargaining objectives and the K-12 Public Education Sectoral Collective Bargaining Plan Teachers. b. BCPSEA Symposium, November, 2010 Liaison and dialogue with Symposium attendees to further discuss the direction of bargaining, in the context of the BCTF local bargaining initiative and government educational initiatives, and in preparation for the Representative Council in January P a g e

47 c. BCPSEA Annual General Meeting and Representative Council, January, 2011 AGM 2011 will be integrated with a Representative Council to endorse the BCPSEA broad and specific bargaining objectives, as developed throughout the collective bargaining preparation phase. The broad and specific bargaining objectives will be the foundation for the bargaining proposals to be exchanged at the table. d. March 1, 2011 Formal collective bargaining may commence. e. June 30, 2011 Expiry of the BCTF-BCPSEA Provincial Collective Agreement. 2. BCPSEA Internal Planning and Resourcing a. BCPSEA Resources Current organizational resources will be reviewed to ensure optimum resources are available to serve all functions of the organization as negotiations commence and continue. The BCPSEA bargaining team will consist of a core group to be supplemented and supported by subject matter experts as required. The team will have resource and support personnel from both administrative and research functions. The team will be finalized by the Representative Council in January b. Employment Data and Analysis System (EDAS) EDAS will serve as a crucial resource to the organization both in preparation for and during negotiations. BCPSEA will establish internal processes for facilitating the flow of information between EDAS and the BCPSEA bargaining team and resources. c. Collective Bargaining Information Management Centre (CBIMC) CBIMC will be customized as a resource for teacher collective bargaining, in addition to the current resource of supporting support staff bargaining. The CBIMC will serve as a critical resource and communication tool for both BCPSEA and school district staff. d. Integration of Public Policy Initiatives The compensation mandate and the education policy initiatives that have employment implications will be integrated into the bargaining plan and processes. The current dialogue and liaison relationships with government will continue, to enable the integration of government educational initiatives into bargaining planning, proposal development, and communications initiatives. 45 P a g e

48 e. Communications Plan A comprehensive communications plan will be developed to enable optimal communications between and amongst all relevant stakeholders in the collective bargaining process. The CBIMC will be an integral component of this plan, as well the use of social networking. f. Focus and Resource Groups Focus and resource groups will be established to support and inform the bargaining team. These groups will communicate through a variety of media in order to maximize the use of the organization s resources. g. Proposal Development Proposal development will occur in conjunction with the BCPSEA bargaining objectives and the K-12 Public Education Sectoral Collective Bargaining Plan Teachers. h. BCTF Communications BCPSEA will remain engaged with the BCTF as bargaining approaches and commences. The organization will rely on and continue to build upon the relationships established over the term of the collective agreement. The Benefits Review Committee will continue to meet in preparation for bargaining, and may evolve as bargaining commences and continues. 46 P a g e

49 Appendix E: BCTF Bargaining Plan As Approved November That the Federation notify BCPSEA that the Federation intends to negotiate changes to bargaining, prior to the 2011 round. 2. That the Federation meet with government to discuss changes that would: a. result in a greater degree of local bargaining and provide funding for this to occur b. address issues of class size, composition, and ratios for specialist teachers c. provide improvements in salary and benefits for teachers. 3. That a provincial bargaining conference be held in the fall of 2010 to discsuss progress to date on discussions with government and to identify provincial bargaining objectives and strategy limited to: a. the renegotiation of Letters of Understanding 1 and Appendices 1 and 2 b. a provincial funding framework (both funding and a method for equitable distribution) to be applied to local tables c. items directed by the PELRA to the provincial table (salary, hours of work, benefits, and paid leaves). 4. That the Federation meet with government to: a. negotiate full-scope bargaining of class-size and composition conditions currently restricted and regulated by amendments to the School Act contained in Bills 27 and 28 b. inform government of our intention to renegotiate LOU 1 and Appendices 1 and 2 with BCPSEA and request a government representative at that negotiation c. negotiate a funding framework for (both funding and a method for equitable distribution) to be applied to local negotiations. 5. That the BCTF initiate negotiation of LOU 1 and Appendices 1 and 2 at the provincial table to enable locals to bargain all terms and conditions not precluded by legislative amendments to the School Act contained in Bills 27 and 28; and, that the BCTF request the participation of a government representative. 6. That locals notify boards of education that the local intends to bargain terms and conditions of teacher employment except salary, hours of work, benefits, and paid leaves that are precluded by the PELRA. 7. That, following March 1, 2011, locals open on bargaining objectives set by their members exclusive of items directed by PELRA to the provincial table (salary, hours of work, benefits, and paid leaves). 8. That the Federation provide support and advice for local bargaining. 9. That, if necessary, the Executive Committee recommend a provincial strike vote based on the progess of both provincial and local tables to: a. support bargaining at both provincial and local tables 47 P a g e

50 b. support Federation efforts to remove restrictions on bargaining class-size and composition conditions. 10. That, at an appropriate time, the Executive Committee call a special expanded RA on the progress of local bargaining to: a. asses the progress of local bargaining b. direct the provincial table on negotiation of PELRA issues (salary, hours of work, benefits, paid leaves) c. determine a dispute resolution process to address unresolved local issues. 11. That the provincial bargaining table be resumed when local bargaining is concluded. 12. That the Executive Committee report to every RA and AGM on the progress of discussions with government and the renegotiations of LOU 1 and Appendices 1 and 2 and make recommendations regarding bargaining strategy as needed. 13. That the Executive Committee monitor the progress of bargaining at local and provincial tables and report to local presidents and RAs and recommend as needed: a. provincial job action b. ratification vote of an agreement-in-committee. 48 P a g e

51 Appendix F: BCPSEA November 26, 2010 Letter to BCTF 49 P a g e

52 50 P a g e

53 51 P a g e

54 52 P a g e

55 53 P a g e