Skip to main content

Education Saskatchewan teachers vote no to tentative contract; union to ask for conciliation

Saskatchewan teachers have rejected a second tentative contract with the government.

The proposed agreement included a total compensation increase of 7.3 per cent over four years, as well as a $700 pro-rated payment in the first year.

But 63 per cent of more than 13,000 teachers voted no to the proposed deal.

Story continues below advertisement

Colin Keess, president of the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, says teachers didn't believe the offer had sufficient resources or did enough to address their concerns.

"We are looking to try to resolve long-standing issues with our partners," Keess said in an interview Monday.

"The issues of the school year (and) school day are intensely important to teachers. Class composition and size, again, are intensely important issues for teachers."

Keess had said in a news release that the federation was concerned that the agreement, "which in our judgment was the best that could be reached at the bargaining table," was not acceptable to teachers.

The federation says it will now apply for conciliation.

The government bargaining committee says it's also disappointed, although committee spokeswoman Connie Bailey said she still hopes a deal can be reached.

"I always prefer to be optimistic and we'd always prefer a negotiated contract. But we both have to take some time to reflect on what we need to do to ensure that the next tentative agreement will be passed," she said.

Story continues below advertisement

The offer was comparable to the terms in other public sector agreements and kept Saskatchewan teachers competitive with other teachers in Western Canada, Bailey said.

Saskatchewan teachers have been without a contract since Aug. 31, 2013.

In British Columbia, a full-scale teachers strike appeared imminent Monday as their union and the government continued to clash despite three days of negotiations.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter