VANCOUVER – British Columbia’s teachers will resume discussions around class size and composition with heads held high, but without help from the courts they were hoping to use as leverage in their ongoing contract dispute.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge refused on Wednesday to clarify an April ruling declaring legislation created by the government in 2002 unconstitutional.
Six months after the decision, the B.C. Teachers’ Federation hoped the judge would provide directions for contract talks. The earlier ruling, which fell in the teachers’ favour, stated the Liberal government violated the union’s right to negotiate class size and composition.
Teachers walked away from talks aimed at resolving that issue last month, contending the government was avoiding tackling the problem. The government claimed it had until April 2012 to solve the issue, as the court had directed.
B.C. Teachers Federation president Susan Lambert said they went to court hoping to get contract talks back on track.
“We’ve been told today the justice doesn’t feel it’s her jurisdiction to answer this application. And so we will now go back to government with the reaffirmation that the legislation they brought in 2002 is unconstitutional, invalid and will be taken off the books.”
Collective bargaining, has been proceeding as a separate process. But the teachers, who’ve been in a legal strike position since school began in September, were hopeful they could get more instructions from the judge and apply them during bargaining.
Justice Susan Griffith bluntly dismissed the union’s application in a judgment delivered in Vancouver. She said the “true purpose” of the BCTF returning to court was to persuade her to declare which interpretation of her ruling was correct.
But that’s not the court’s role, she said.
“The fact that the BCTF and the province summarize the reasoning of the court somewhat differently does not mean the court’s ruling is ambiguous,” she said, adding her rationale was an entire 385 paragraphs long.
“The function of the court is to settle real and present disputes,” she said. “Courts do not exist to give opinions on hypothetical situations.”
Lambert said taking the issue of interpretation to court had been aimed at speeding up a resolution on classroom make up.
“But (Griffin) also said there can be different interpretations, and there are different interpretations at this point,” Lambert noted outside court.
The union wants nothing less than for the questionable legislation to be repealed.
Education Minister George Abbott approached the union with a unique solution last month, suggesting the government could address class composition with a $ 165 million funding package over three years. The money would offer help for students with special needs.
He said on Wednesday he believes there is still plenty of time to find an agreement.
“Just prior to the departure of the (union) from that table, we had advanced what I thought was a very constructive and thoughtful proposal,” he said in an interview.
“We believe that the Teachers’ Federation can make a huge contribution to that discussion and we hope that the discussion can continue as quickly as possible.”
Abbott said he’s confident in the position because it mimics other moves the government made to reach agreements with provincial health care workers. The courts have also ruled in their favour over complaints about Liberal legislation.
Lambert said she hopes the two sides could go back to hammering out a deal with the legal question set aside, but maintained on Wednesday the government’s offer doesn’t meet the union’s wishes.
“Any proposal on the table is certainly not one that addresses the original court case,” she said.
The teachers continue to engage in a first stage of strike action by refusing to do administrative work. Both Lambert and Abbott suggested there’s been some progress in recent negotiations.
Local news from metronews.ca/vancouver
About The Reporter
