Where did management back down?
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:
original objective was to entirely eliminate all
and weighting of students,
all compensation to teachers
all definitions and descriptions
of special needs.
The employer wanted to eliminate the
necessity to negotiate
school calendars with teachers.
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.
The employer wanted to remove any obligation
We managed to obtain a return to our
status quo on voluntary
At the English table, we have agreed on a return to the status
were many attempts by management to force
elementary teachers to offer recuperation to students
Where did we have to give up on demands?
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
· class size
of grade 1 in any multi-age grouping;
of the maximum number of groups for specialists;
heads at secondary level;
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
insists on removing this limit.
has defined this as an absolute
requirement for them. The
union side has not accepted this for
- possible insurance problems related to long-term
- possible impact on other unionized groups.
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
at both tables;
The process to be followed at the school level needs
properly articulated; this is particularly true
at the English table;
The various definitions of special needs students require
- at the French table, there is disagreement on one definition;
list remains to be negotiated at the English
The relationship between the new approach and the existing
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.