Skip to main content

Teachers on strike rally outside of Queen's Park in Toronto on Thursday, May 14, 2015.

Matthew Sherwood/The Globe and Mail

Ontario's new teacher bargaining legislation leaves some important questions hazy, particularly three key words, the province's Labour Relations Board heard on Wednesday.

The legislation separates negotiations into local, board-level talks and central talks that include the province. The school boards that have strikes in the current round of local contract talks – Durham, Peel and Rainbow – say teachers walked out to send a message over central issues, particularly class sizes, and they say that is illegal under the new law.

If labour board chair Bernard Fishbein agrees, teachers will be ordered back to work. But the hearing stretched into its fourth day on Wednesday with no resolution of the complex legal arguments.

Story continues below advertisement

The law says teachers unions may strike "in respect of" issues at either level as long as they give proper notice to the appropriate bargaining partner. But it does not explain how to determine exactly what grievances the teachers are striking "in respect of," or whether they can mix the issues in a strike at either level.

Much evidence brought to the hearing focused on what was written on picket signs, what striking teachers said during casual conversations, and what union leaders told the media.

Asking the labour board to peek into the teachers' hearts and minds is "as invasive as it is impossible," and could have a chilling effect on their right to strike, argued Heather Alden, a lawyer representing the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

The law also does not explicitly forbid teachers on a local strike from expressing some unhappiness over non-local issues, she said, and a strike should not have to end, as the school boards say it should, because a few strikers talk about issues from the other level of bargaining.

"Local strike done, full stop; it ends for everyone, whether two people of the bargaining unit are striking for central issues, 300, or the entire membership, it doesn't matter. It's over," she said.

Mr. Fishbein challenged her logic, asking whether the union does not exercise some control over its members' picket signs and other forms of expression.

Requiring a local strike to be focused on local bargaining problems is within the spirit of the legislation, said Michael Hines, the lawyer for the three school boards.

Story continues below advertisement

He said the law would be "a mockery of itself" if it allowed employees to "start hopping the fence" on issues.

Crown lawyer Robert Fredericks said the legislation contains little guidance for Mr. Fishbein on how to determine teachers' intentions. But leaving that phrase vague was no mistake, he said.

"It allows the labour board to use its expertise to determine what the strike is actually in respect of," he said. "I understand it's difficult."

The hearing is expected to finish on Thursday, with a written decision soon after.

Education Minister Liz Sandals said the legislation was written after "extensive consultation" with the unions, and that everyone involved in negotiations had reached a consensus over its rules.

"It sets out clear roles and responsibilities for all our education partners involved in the collective bargaining process," she said.

Story continues below advertisement

In a separate process, a panel is deciding this week whether the three strikes could jeopardize the completion of the school year in the three affected boards. The Education Relations Commissions' decision could clear the way for the province to enact back-to-work legislation.

With a report from The Canadian Press

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

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:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • 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. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

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.
Cannabis pro newsletter