Enseignantes et enseignants : les « manifestations politiques » sont aussi illicites déclare la CRTO

Dans une décision rendue aux petites heures du matin vendredi dernier, le président de la Commission des relations de travail de l’Ontario (« CRTO »), Bernard Fishbein, a tranché que les manifestations politiques que planifiait la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’élémentaire de l’Ontario (« FEEO ») étaient illicites. Le président de la CRTO a conclu que toute interruption de travail en raison de telles manifestations, même si celles-ci étaient à caractère purement politique, était interdite par la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail (« LRTO »). Alors que la décision impliquait seulement la FEEO, elle s’applique vraisemblablement à toutes les enseignantes et à tous les enseignants de la province.

En fait, cette conclusion n’est pas si surprenante. En vertu de la LRTO et de la Loi de 2012 donnant la priorité aux élèves (le fameux projet de loi 115), tout arrêt de travail entrepris alors qu’une convention collective est en vigueur est strictement interdit. Or, le 2 janvier dernier, la ministre de l’Éducation imposait de nouveaux contrats de travail par voie de décret aux employeurs et aux syndicats du secteur de l’éducation toujours sans contrat suite à l’expiration de leurs conventions collectives le 31 août dernier. Ces décrets ont pris effet sur le champ et les nouveaux contrats de travail sont en vigueur pour une période de deux ans, soit jusqu’au 31 août 2014. Quoique plusieurs syndicats du secteur de l’éducation se sont opposés vigoureusement au projet de loi 115 – notamment en en contestant la validité constitutionnelle devant les tribunaux – les conventions collectives renouvelées demeureront valides, à moins d’avis contraire par les tribunaux.

Continue Reading

Ontario Schools Mark Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week / L'Ontario souligne la Semaine de la sensibilisation à l'intimidation et de la prévention dans le milieu scolaire

November 18, 2012 marked the beginning of the Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week in Ontario schools. Until November 23, 2012 Ontario schools are organizing activities to educate students, parents and school staff about what constitutes bullying and the consequences it can have on the overall school environment. Greater awareness will educate the community on this important issue while highlighting resources available for the prevention of bullying.

Bullying is an increasingly pervasive problem in Canada, particularly in schools. Ontario’s Ministry of Education defines bullying as a form of “repeated, persistent and aggressive behaviour directed at an individual or individuals that is intended to cause (or should be known to cause) fear and distress and/or harm to another person's body, feelings, self-esteem or reputation.”

Bullying can take many forms, such as physical, verbal, social or electronic (cyberbullying). Victims of bullying can suffer psychological damage and even injury leading to death. One only has to think of recent examples such as Mitchell Wilson (Pickering, ON) and Amanda Todd (Port Coquitlam, BC) to understand the severity of this problem.

For the first time, this year’s Awareness Week is being recognized as part of the newly adopted Accepting Schools Act. Adopted in June 2012, the law requires that all school boards in Ontario take preventive measures against bullying, issue tougher consequences in cases of bullying, and support students who want to promote greater understanding and respect for all. This supplements other obligations and responsibilities of principals and teachers to make Ontario schools more safe, inclusive and tolerant.

In addition, the Minister officially launched the new edition of the Premier's Awards for Accepting Schools. These awards pay tribute to the safe school teams for the work they have done in creating a safe and tolerant school environment.

Perhaps one day we will see similar initiatives in other sectors and industries in Ontario. Meanwhile, the awareness of students and parents may have a positive impact on the workplace environments of tomorrow.

(Continuer pour lire en français)

Continue Reading

SCC: Special Education is Not a "Luxury"

On November 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released an important decision in Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 that could have serious cost implications for provincial Ministries of Education and school boards across the country dealing with special needs children.  The decision dealt with a young student suffering from a form of dyslexia who was forced to enroll at a private school when funding for some of the services he needed was cut by his school board.

After 15 years of litigation, a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court reversed two lower courts’ decisions and substantially agreed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s (“BCHRT”) that the school board had discriminated against the student when it cut all funding to the Diagnostic Centre - a program which provided intensive services and individualized assistance to students with severe learning disabilities.  The Supreme Court required that the school board reimburse the student’s parents for the cost of having to send their son to private school, in addition to reimbursing their legal costs.  The Supreme Court also awarded damages of $10,000 to the family.

This decision is receiving national attention because it forces school boards across the country to re-evaluate any future plans to trim back funding for special education in light of shrinking budgets and difficult economic times. 

Continue Reading

Arbitrator denies teacher's sick claim based on self-reported migraine headache

Trillium Lakelands District School Board v Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario is a labour arbitration award of interest for employers, notably those in the education sector, who face the “headache” of dubious sick leave claims. It is a decision that is not insensitive to the realities facing employees who suffer disabling conditions. But it is also a case that is steeped in common sense and reminds us of the need for personal responsibility in certain situations.

A teacher suffered a migraine headache on her last day of vacation (in Rome, Italy) and as a result missed her flight home, which in turn caused her to miss her first scheduled day of work following her vacation.

After investigation the Employer decided not to treat the absence as a disciplinary matter. However it denied the teacher a paid sick day. A grievance ensued, which went to arbitration.

 

Continue Reading