Make your own free website on Tripod.com

APPALACHIAN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

QPAT Negotiations Bulletin October 26, 2005 Part Three
Home
RESULTS OF VOTING
Agreement & Decree Comparison
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 18
Law 142 / Loi 142
Jean Charest's Report Card
HOW WE GOT TO THE PRESENT SITUATION
The Heart of our Demand
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 1
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 2
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 3
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 4
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 5
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 6
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 7
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 8
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 9
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 10
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 11
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 12
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 13
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 14
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 15
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 16
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin October 26, 2005 Part One
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin October 26, 2005 Part Two
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin October 26, 2005 Part Three
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin October 26, 2005 Part Four
Mise à jour sur la négociation (section un)
Mise à jour sur la négociation (section deux)
Mise à jour sur la négociation (section trois)
Mise à jour sur la négociation (section quatre)
QPAT Negotiations Bulletin 17
Modified Action Plan
Plan d'action modifié
November 14 Voting Results
QESBA Press Release
New Name for Ministry of Education
Links
Contact Us
Contact Claude Bachand
Contact Daniel Bouchard
Contact Claude Boucher
Contact Bernard Brodeur
Contact Jean Charest
Contact Jean-Marc Fournier
Contact Monique Gagnon-Tremblay
Contact Normand Jutras
Contact Pierre Paradis
Contact Pierre Reid
Contact Jean Rioux
Contact Yvon Vallieres
The Quebec Electoral Map

 

Where did management back down?

 

The employer had demands which would have resulted in considerably increased management rights.  And just as you might expect, we fought as hard as we could to eliminate these threats.  The following items are no longer on the table as of October 13, because we managed to get rid of them:

 

Special education:                 

Management’s original objective was to entirely eliminate all

coding and weighting of students, all compensation to teachers

and all definitions and descriptions of special needs.

 

Work year:                            

The employer wanted to eliminate the necessity to negotiate

school calendars with teachers.

 

General principles:               

The employer wanted to include a number of broad general

principles so as to substantially increase the workload of

teachers and allow for far greater control by management.

 

Adult/vocational education:

The employer wanted to remove any obligation to maintain

regular positions.

 

ECA’s:                                   

We managed to obtain a return to our status quo on voluntary

extra-curricular activities.

 

Recuperation:                       

At the English table, we have agreed on a return to the status

quo. There were many attempts by management to force

elementary teachers to offer recuperation to students

other than their own.

 

 

Where did we have to give up on demands?

 

The union side removed, over the course of negotiations, a number of demands that had monetary implications.  Our choice was to accept that almost all the monetary gains in our sectorial negotiations would be in the area of special education.  Specifically, we compromised by abandoning items such as:

 

·        kindergarten release time;

·        class size reductions;

·        exclusion of grade 1 in any multi-age grouping;

·       reduction of the maximum number of groups for specialists;

·        department heads at secondary level;

·       improvement of the criteria for granting part-time contracts for adult and vocational education teachers.

 

 

What issues are still outstanding?

 

Mobility of teachers on availability:                       

 

There is presently a 50 km limit beyond which a teacher on

availability can’t be forced to move.  We have had this job

security protection for more than 25 years. The employer

demand insists on removing this limit.

Temporary Assignment:      
Management has defined this as an absolute requirement for them.   The union side has not accepted this for two reasons:

  • possible insurance problems related to long-term disability;
  • possible impact on other unionized groups.

Special Education:                 

 

A number of new provisions have been agreed to in order to

increase services to certain categories of students and to

render the process more efficient. (See Special Education

above)  However, many other  issues must still be resolved

before the new model is functional.  Here are some examples: 

 

The financing of these improvements is conditional upon an 

overall agreement at both tables;

 

The process to be followed at the school level needs to be

properly articulated; this is particularly true at the English table;

 

The various definitions of special needs students require work

- at the French table, there is disagreement on one definition;

however, the entire list remains to be negotiated at the English

table;

 

The relationship between the new approach and the existing

models (IPL, IEP, etc.) must be clarified; again this is

particularly true at the English table;

 

Although management indicated in June, in writing, that the school-level committee would be decisional, the current text does not yet reflect that commitment;

 

The use of a simple, standard form for triggering services quickly and efficiently is a major dispute; we want to avoid allowing the school board to impose an unwieldy procedure which would delay delivery of services.

 

The ATA Supports Quality Public Education
in the Eastern Townships