Page Content
Johnson inserts himself in local collective bargaining process as tripartite discussions conclude
A number of communications out of Education Minister Jeff Johnson’s office at the conclusion of tripartite discussions are raising questions about whether school boards or the minister are leading the way in local negotiations. Disengagement from tripartite discussions was finalized when the Association responded on December 12 to Minister Johnson’s rejection of the ATA’s November 30 proposal to the premier.
Questionable communications include the distribution of his #AbEd newsletter that boards were directed to distribute to teachers and his recent public musings on matters of teacher salary (see Merit Pay Rears Its Head, p. 1). But more problematic interventions came in the form of communications with school boards.
On December 18 a meeting was held with Minister Johnson, Minister of Finance Doug Horner, school board superintendents and board chairs. Horner reportedly put into doubt the two per cent funding commitment for education for each of the next two years made by government in Budget 2012. Minister Johnson has also directed which grants could be considered part of local negotiations. Interestingly, an e-mail to boards on December 12 says that the Equity of Opportunity grant is not on the table, even though it was introduced by Premier Redford to make up for a shortfall when government refused to fund previous teacher salary commitments.
Johnson further directed boards in an e-mail on December 21 to forward the terms, conditions and costings of any proposed agreements reached with teachers. He directed that the details be forwarded at least 10 business days prior to ratification of such agreements. There is no detail provided as to how the Minister intends to use the information.
ATA President Carol Henderson sent a letter to the minister on December 21 calling it unusual that the minister would be providing school boards with specific directions for local bargaining with teachers or for the settlement positions of boards. “Such intervention is not respectful of the role of school boards or the Association in the collective bargaining process and may be perceived as interference,” wrote Henderson.
Henderson also took exception to assertions made by Johnson that the Association and government came to an agreement on salary. “The Association provided to the Premier and copied to you a package offer, only one component of which was the salary proposal you describe,” she writes. “Government chose to reject that package offer and cannot now suggest that the Association or its bargaining units are in any way bound by any component of that offer.”
The ATA’s November 30 proposal was an attempt to secure labour peace in education and to address the significant concerns of teachers related to their conditions of practice. The proposal represented what the ATA thought was achievable after four months of discussions at the tripartite table. The Association offered to address the fiscal and stability concerns of government, including an offer to limit salary grid increases to 0 per cent, 0 per cent, 1 per cent and 3 per cent over four years, respectively. The proposal also called for salary increases to bring all salary grids up to the 2011/12 provincial average.
In exchange, teachers sought to improve their conditions of practice by reducing the time they spend on administrative and bureaucratic tasks, which detracts from their ability to focus on student learning. The ATA’s proposal called for the extension of clauses related to hours of instruction and assignment in those jurisdictions where they existed in 2011/12. In jurisdictions where they did not exist, it called for best efforts from school boards and government to reduce teacher assignments and to move them toward the norms established by the protections where they exist. The ATA also proposed time in lieu for teachers and administrators who are required by their boards to work during holiday periods.
In a letter to ATA President Carol Henderson, dated December 7, Minister Johnson rejected the Association’s proposal. The minister’s letter included an alternative proposal for a provincial framework, but that proposal contained no real measurable improvements to teachers’ conditions of practice. The Alberta School Boards Association did not table an offer at any point in the process.
Henderson says teachers’ concerns about their conditions of practice remain and will need to be addressed as we turn the page on tripartite and continue with full local bargaining. The ATA will attempt to resolve these professional issues and others in bargaining with local school boards, but there are already warning signals that the positions of school boards may not enable easy settlements.
Henderson says she values the good working relationship that has been established with the government, and she looks ahead to working together on a number of other important issues. But she cautions that teachers must also be aware of potential challenges down the road. The minister was clearly unwilling to provide teachers with assurances that the government would not change critical legislation and regulations related to the teaching profession. Indeed, the government is planning to introduce new legislation that would replace the Teaching Profession Act.
“Our proposal represented the best opportunity to provide security to teachers over the next four years while improving classroom conditions,” says Henderson. “Now we are entering unstable waters, and we must be prepared for a number of potential challenges. I willingly accept the responsibility to carry forward the interests of teachers and to achieve positive outcomes for students, for learning and for public education.”
Read more—visit the ATA website to view the following:
• Setting the record straight on the ATA’s proposal to government
• Life and death of tripartite discussions
What happens next? See “Creating the Conditions,” ATA News, page 7.
