Supreme Court set to hear B.C. teachers’ case

Fight over class size, composition has big implications for education system

The B.C. Teachers’ Federation will finally have its day in Canada’s highest court.

On Nov. 10, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal in the long-running case between the BCTF and the provincial government over class size and composition.

In April 2015, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned a 2014 B.C. Supreme Court decision to restore classroom composition rules, class size rules and specialist teacher ratios to the teachers’ contract that were stripped in 2002.

More than 10 other parties have been approved as interveners in the case, including the attorneys general of Canada and several provinces and many unions and labour associations.

The case has huge implications for B.C.’s education system, with affidavits submitted to the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2014 by school superintendents estimating that thousands of teachers would need to be hired and more classroom space would need to be found to restore the class size and composition rules. In Surrey alone, the restoration would cost an estimated $40 million a year. Surrey represents about 10 per cent of the entire provincial education system. In 2014, the B.C. Public School Employers’ Association estimated it would cost more than $1 billion a year to return to 2002 service levels.

B.C. Justice Susan Griffin ruled in 2014 that government legislation introduced in 2012 was unconstitutional because it did not allow collective bargaining on issues of class size and class composition.

In April 2015, a panel of five B.C. judges ruled “the legislation was constitutional. Between the consultations and the collective bargaining leading up to the legislation, teachers were afforded a meaningful process in which to advance their collective aspirations. Their freedom of association was respected.”

Four of the five judges agreed with the decision, while one judge dissented. While the dissenting judge said the consultation was relevant, he agreed with Justice Griffin’s 2014 judgment that the government failed to consult in good faith.

The case hinges on whether prelegislative consultation can be a replacement for good faith collective bargaining.

The BCTF case filed with the Supreme Court argues that the government bargained in bad faith and tried to provoke a strike.

“When, as in this case, a powerful state plans legislative nullification of collective agreement terms and meets with the union beforehand for discussions, the state holds all the power,” the union stated. “Consequently, it has little to no incentive to compromise, thereby increasing the inequality between the parties.”

The province argues that the right to bargain class size, class composition, and staffing levels was restored in the 2012 Educa- tion Improvement Act, but that didn’t mean the clauses themselves should be restored.

“Theconsultationprocessdidnot end in consensus between government and the BCTF,” the province stated. “The BCTF was unwilling to engage in discussion of any option other than the one the union believed was constitutionally mandated: restoration of the clauses to the collective agreement.”

The province didn’t agree to restore the clauses because it wanted to increase flexibility for school districts, choice for families and efficiency in the allocation of public resources, it argued.

There is a publication ban on parts of the case that deal with cabinet confidentiality.

The Supreme Court of Canada usually takes about six months to issue a ruling.