Last November, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the B.C. Teachers Federation regarding class size and composition. Since then, there has been a lot of action around restoring the language in the collective agreement and hire a bunch of teachers to fill the gap.
But the bigger outcome of the ruling has little to do with class size and composition. The decision wasn't about how many kids should be in a classroom, it was about the negotiations around how many kids should be in a classroom.
Collective bargaining rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and the BCTF argued, successfully, that its rights had been violated. The ruling changed government's ability to create policy around publicly funded operations. And the decision has far-reaching implications.
So many people believe the government was fighting the teachers. That is not the case. The government was arguing for the ability to control public sector contracts, not about kids in schools.
Every government that receives a new mandate makes changes in policy from the previous one. The Trudeau government made many changes when it took over. The Trump government is doing the same. No policy or law is immune from revision when the people decide the country needs to go in a new direction, which they do by electing a new government.
In 2001, the contract with the teachers ended, and a new one was being negotiated. The new government felt the language around class size and composition limited its ability to deliver education effectively in the province, so it did not include that language in the new contract.
Some have said the contract was torn up. Some media even reported it that way. That claim is false. The class size and composition clause was not included in the new contract, which formed part of the going-in position of the new government of the day. From there, it was subject to negotiation.
That's where the problem started - the BCTF didn't agree the language should be removed (no surprise), so an agreement wasn't reached. The government legislated the teachers back to work. But through that process, the BCTF successfully argued the government did not negotiate fairly on the removal of the specific language. That was what the case has always been about - negotiating language in a contract, not what the specific language might be. The government argued it must be able to make changes to contracts that could have farreaching effects on the public purse. As an example, imagine if a contract included an enhancement to maternity leave, doubling it to two years and fully funding it. Great for those who can use it, but prohibitively expensive for the government to maintain. A new government might want to take this out of a new contract. This ruling makes it nearly impossible to remove.
That's why these negotiations matter, and this ruling is significant. Our governments have to be careful with these agreements, because with this ruling, they have little power to change them later on, regardless of the economic environment. Private sector employers go out of business if contracts become untenable. Governments can't.
That's why who we elect in May makes a difference. Now more than ever.
Brad Sherwin, MBA has over 25 years' experience in marketing, public relations and business strategy. He is currently the director of marketing for a national non-profit organization.
