News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.1K     0 

I'm not sure why the notwithstanding clause would even come into play.

For better or worse, governments are within their rights to legislate people back to work. It happens with alarming regularity in Canada.

The response by unions will be interesting.
 
The landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling
  • Who: The B.C. Teachers' Federation (BCTF) vs. the B.C. government.
  • What happened: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the B.C. government had violated the teachers' freedom of association under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by stripping class size and composition protections from their collective agreements.
  • When: The ruling was made in November 2016.
  • Significance: The decision sent a strong message to governments across Canada to respect collective bargaining and cannot act unilaterally to remove these protections. It restored contract provisions on class size and composition that were in place in 2002.
 
BrettB said:
I'm not sure why the notwithstanding clause would even come into play.

For better or worse, governments are within their rights to legislate people back to work. It happens with alarming regularity in Canada.

The response by unions will be interesting.
Click to expand...
I did not think they would do it either. Ending the strike and forcing arbitration would totally be in their rights without it. However, the ATA would still have been able to challenge the legislation or pursue other forms of job action, like work to rule. This bill went full nuclear and not only ends the strike but forces a contract on the teachers. In addition it prohibits the contract from being challenged under any provincial or federal legislation (including the Alberta Human Rights Act), and forbids teachers from pursuing any other form of job action. To go that far requires the Notwithstanding clause.

Alberta has long played this game of not allowing teachers to negotiate work conditions as a provincial level, only wages (two tier bargaining). Placing the responsibility of "learning conditions" on the school boards, but then controlling the funding so that school boards don't actually have the freedom to do things like have class size limits. Which is what teachers are most mad about. Honestly, if the province brought forward a contract with class size/complexity limits in the realm of all the other provinces alongside the current wage offer, I am sure teachers would vote yes for it.

I'm not sure what their end game is here, as they have to know this option forces the other unions to get involved as this is an existential threat to the right to collective bargaining. Best I have got is that Smith is just the kind of person who likes to watch the world burn.
 
The_Cat said:
The landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling
  • Who: The B.C. Teachers' Federation (BCTF) vs. the B.C. government.
  • What happened: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the B.C. government had violated the teachers' freedom of association under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by stripping class size and composition protections from their collective agreements.
  • When: The ruling was made in November 2016.
  • Significance: The decision sent a strong message to governments across Canada to respect collective bargaining and cannot act unilaterally to remove these protections. It restored contract provisions on class size and composition that were in place in 2002.
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure that one is relevant. In that case BC had negotiated class size and composition into a contract, then a new government was elected and they decided to renege on the deal claiming the previous government had made a deal that "was not in the scope of collective bargaining". The BCTF took it to the supreme court and won that it was valid and forced BC to honor the contract. However, Alberta has never had class size/composition in their contracts so the supreme court has nothing to impose. I think the province is trying to avoid having class size/complexity imposed by an arbitrator, but even then it makes no sense as I think any arbitration would be limited by the Public Education Collective Bargaining Act which limits working conditions negotiations to the school board level.
 
BrettB said:
I'm not sure why the notwithstanding clause would even come into play.

For better or worse, governments are within their rights to legislate people back to work. It happens with alarming regularity in Canada.

The response by unions will be interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes, they really didn't have to use this. However, it is not surprising that Smith and the UCP are now treating rights like something to be crumpled up and discarded when inconvenient.

It is totally consistent with her autocratic style.
 
Meanwhile....

www.ctvnews.ca

‘Forever Canadian’ petition surpasses goal, collects 456K signatures

Thomas Lukaszuk, a former deputy premier of Alberta who has circulated a petition to make it official policy for the province to stay in Canada, says it has just over 456,000 signatures.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca

Thomas Lukaszuk, a former deputy premier of Alberta who has circulated a petition to make it official policy for the province to stay in Canada, says it has just over 456,000 signatures.

The final tally is far greater than the required 294,000 signatures to initiate a possible referendum in Alberta.

The “Forever Canadian” petition asks: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?”
 
1761674406115.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top