Education and Early Childhood Development
Office of the Minister

 

PO Box 578, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 259 - Telephone 902 424-4236 Fax 902 424-0680 . 

 

December 1, 2016

Liette Doucet, President
Nova Scotia Teachers Union
3106 Joseph Howe Drive
Halifax, NS B3L 4L7

Dear Ms. Doucet:
Re: Notice regarding Education Act Duties

I am writing to you as a result of the breakdown in conciliation that occurred on Friday,
November 25, and the intention of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union (N STU) to have members
commence strike action on December 5, 2016 by limiting their work activities while they are at
school and receiving pay.

We were and remain willing to discuss outstanding matters and to explore with you any steps
which will achieve a resolution that respects the interests of all Nova Scotians, particularly
students and parents. Since the issuance of the NSTU strike notice on Monday, the NSTU seems
to be intent on disruptive work action which may put students at risk.

Having reviewed the directives to members for so-called ?work to rule? strike action,
we now have serious concerns that you are counselling members to take action after 12:01 am on
Monday, December 5, 2016 which will result in your members breaching their duties under the
Education Act.

Process to Date

When we reached the last agreement through collective bargaining on September 2, 2016 the
wage increase for your members over a seven year period would have been 10.5% (being 7.5%
from 2012 to 2015 and 3% from 2015 to 2019). You and your bargaining committee are aware
of the limited ?nancial capacity we have to meet your wage demands.

When conciliation re?commenced last week NSTU negotiators articulated 16 new proposals.
This was the ?rst time in this entire process that your negotiators articulated a wage demand of a
minimum of 8% wage growth over four years. At no time since the commencement of the
process on June 18, 2015 had such a substantial wage demand been raised. Despite this,

my committee responded to all of the proposals, including wages and service award proposals,
and provided some information on costing for further discussion.

 

Several items were identi?ed that we felt should be dealt with by the Partnership on Systemic
Working Conditions. For example, we all share a desire to eliminate unnecessary
documentation. Likewise, we share a desire to ?nd cost-effective ways of reducing ?clerical
work? of teachers. The Partnership should, in a collaborative and constructive way, examine
current practices with a view to quickly resolving any issues with unnecessary documentation
and clerical work. My committee also posed several questions regarding the union proposals.

In asking for conciliation we did not think you would be under any illusion that we would be
able to agree to increased wage demands. We assumed the NSTU members and your bargaining
committee would be mindful of what chief negotiator said in his letter of November 24,
2015 when he cautioned all of your members, ?Why would anything change [on wages or public
service award] as a result of conciliation when the provincial executive and negotiating
committee already agreed on an earlier deal.?

With respect to issues such as reducing ?clerical work?, photocopying and a few other elements
you raised in your list of 16 new items, we believe further engagement could be bene?cial. This
opportunity was lost when your committee curtailed the conciliation on Friday, November 25,
2016. The sticking point was really the employer?s position on wages and bene?ts. We simply
do not have the ?scal capacity to meet the wage and bene?t demands which have now been
tabled by your union, and despite our process we do not foresee any scenario where Nova
Scotians can afford an 8% compounding wage increase between now and June 2019.

Collectively, Nova Scotians face a provincial public debt level of over $15.1 billion.

This debt accumulated over many decades. It costs Nova Scotians more than $840 million per
year just to pay the interest on this debt. To illustrate the magnitude of this cost to Nova Scotians,
I point out the total pro gram spending in education is approximately $1.2 billion. If, in fact, our
debt levels were lower, there would be more money available to invest in education or other
public services.

One of the main factors that led to the accumulation of such a large level of debt for such a small
province was an unwillingness of previous govemments of all political stripes to have the resolve
to spend only what they had the ?scal capacity to spend.

Premier McNeil has been resolute that he will not take Nova Scotians further into debt and make
the delivery of public services for all Nova Scotians less sustainable in future.

The importance of this challenge was highlighted in the report of the Nova Scotia Commission
on Building our New Economy (the ?Ivany Report?) which was commissioned by the previous
NDP Government and accepted by all parties. In February of 2014, the Commissioners stated:

.. Our economy today is barely able to support our current standards of living and
public services, and will be much less going forward unless we can reverse current
trends. 

Yes, there is a crisis and it does threaten the basic economic and demographic
viability of our province, most dramatically in our rural regions. 

ll

. The evidence is convincing that Nova Scotia hovers on the brink of an extended
period of decline. 

.. If Government continuously grows its hiring, spending and capital investments faster
than the overall economy and therefore has to keep raising tax rates and borrowing more
to sustain such stimulus spending, it eventually runs out of room to maneuver fiscally and
politically. 

We are, indeed, near that point. Across the public sector a 1% wage increase cost taxpayers
approximately $52 million.

Between 2012 and 2015 members of the NSTU received a total wage increase of 7.5% over three
years. During almost the same period, the economy of Nova Scotia only grew This is the
context we all ?nd ourselves in, though we will continue to work constructively to seek a
resolution to the challenge all Nova Scotians face.

When we offered a 2% wage increase over ?ve years at the commencement of negotiations, the
NSTU counter offered with a proposal for a 3% wage increase over four years. We agreed.

When the NSTU counter offered our proposal on the Public Service Award by requesting that it
be calculated based on wage levels at retirement rather than wages at the end of July, 2015, we
agreed.

We were ?exible and agreed because we could do so yet stay within the scope of the ?scal

plan. Through the bargaining process, in good faith, we compromised to reach agreement. As
your chief negotiator said in his letter to your members of November 2015, ?In this case, the end
of bargaining came early because there were two willing parties. 

After the ?rst agreement was rejected by a majority of your members, your negotiator requested
Government return to the bargaining table. We agreed.

Bargaining resumed on January 17, 2016 and negotiations continued in good faith. In June of
2016, I requested a conciliator be appointed to assist the parties to reach agreement and a
conciliation of?cer was appointed on June 7, 2016. Following conciliation, a second agreement
was reached on September 2, 2016 and again this new agreement was accepted by your
provincial executive and recommended to members. However, your members again did not agree
with the recommendation of your executive.

We requested the conciliator bring the parties back together on November 17, 2016. Two days
of talks were held but, in our view, were ended prematurely by the NSTU.

I am attaching a chronology which outlines the steps which have been undertaken in our
consultations and collective bargaining processes. We have pursued our discussions in good faith
and with an intention to reach agreement. Your chief negotiator has described the process to your
members and noted the earlier agreement was reached because there were two willing parties
who followed a process to get to an agreement.

 

As the chronology shows, we have met frequently and have been committed to the bargaining
process on each occasion we went to the bargaining table, even when your own negotiator
cautioned government would be justi?ed in choosing not to do so. In the most recent conciliated
process we carefully read, reviewed and costed your 16 new proposals. We responded to your
proposals and asked for clari?cation. We have engaged in meaningful dialogue and fully
explained our positions.

Last Friday your bargaining committee walked away from the process and on Monday morning
you gave notice of your intention to take strike action. We now turn to our serious concerns with
your intended actions.

Notice of Duties under Education Act/Safety Concerns

As noted above we have very serious concerns based on the Directives for Work to
Rule: Job Action for Teachers that you are counselling your members?both Teachers and
Principals?to take strike action. This is inconsistent with the duties imposed on Teachers by the
Education Act, including actions that give rise to unacceptable safety risks. If followed, these
would put teachers in breach of several statutory duties they have under the Education Act.

Principals have overall responsibility for their schools and an overriding obligation to
ensure that reasonable steps are taken to create and maintain a safe, orderly, positive and
effective learning environment (s.38 (2) Teachers have statutory duties to take all
reasonable steps to create and maintain an orderly and safe learning environment and to,
at all times, attend to the health and safety of the students. and (11). These are
statutory duties which apply notwithstanding anything in the Teachers? Collective
Bargaining Act which may be inconsistent with these duties. 76). They apply when
schools are in session and Principals and Teachers are on the job and collecting pay.

These duties are not discretionary. Nowhere does it say that these obligations can be
ful?lled by merely arriving at the school 20 minutes before instructional time begins and
leaving 20 minutes after instructional time ends. The potential consequences of such
irresponsible behaviour is foreseeable. Likewise, you have expressly counselled your
members not to supervise students during lunch time, again giving rise to foreseeable risks.
If your instructions are followed by Principals and Teachers it will put them in direct
breach of the duties imposed by the Education Act and accountable for any consequences.

We also wish to draw to your attention to section 34(5) of the Teachers? Collective Bargaining
Act regarding the statutory obligations of certain members regarding the safety of students when
there is strike action. This section does not contemplate that your members can both be on the
job and collecting pay while taking strike action. As members of the bargaining unit neither
Teachers nor Principals are relieved of any of their statutory duties.

Our primary concern is for the safety of students while at school at any time. Several other
elements of your direction to your members regarding your so-called ?work to rule campaign?
are directly inconsistent with the rights of parents and students recognized by the Act and are in
breach of Teachers? and Principals? statutory duties. These are enumerated in section 26 and 38
of the Education Act and include, Without limitation, communication, assessment, supervision,
meeting attendance, data entry and responsibilities to act as ?teacher in charge?.

We wish to emphasize our expectation that the provisions of the Education Act should be fully
met by your members. We enclosed a Notice to this effect which lists the duties and we ask that
you share this document with Principals and Teachers so they are made aware of their
obligations, and, in particular, their duties regarding safety of students. The Notice sets out in full
detail overriding statutory obligations of Principals and Teachers from which your members
cannot select as they see ?t to advance their wage demands. They must meet them all, fully and
at all times when students are present in the schools. The preamble to the Act is clear, students
have a right to an orderly and safe learning environment. Principals and Teachers have
statutory duties to maintain an orderly and safe learning environment when they are on the job
and collecting pay. While it seems your members wish to maintain their full pay and bene?ts
while taking strike action, they cannot do so if doing so breaches the Act and, in particular, if
doing so puts students? safety at risk.

Closing

We have made every effort to again arrive at an agreement acceptable to the NSTU and
government. In recently asking that you resume conciliation instead of initiating work action it
was not our intention to raise false hopes before you responded with a demand for an 8% wage
increase over four years, when you had previously proposed which resulted in the employer
moving off its initial position to accept your proposal. You are now directing your members to
act in breach of the duties imposed by the Education Act to back up that wage demand, among
other things.

As far as improving classroom conditions and educational outcomes, I need not go into detail
because I believe we both want the same thing; better education in our province to improve
our collective future. We have created a forum for resolution of these matters through the
Partnership on Systemic Working Conditions we have mutually agreed to.

It is our expectation that the NSTU will cease and desist from counselling your members to
breach the Education Act and we take this last opportunity to explore whether there are options
that will allow us to address outstanding issues yet stay within the scope of the existing ?scal
capacity of Nova Scotians.

We will be sharing a copy of this letter and Notice with School Boards, Superintendents and any
others we consider appropriate to safeguard the interests and wellbeing of students.

I would be grateful for a timely response and would welcome the opportunity to begin a more
constructive approach.

Yours truly,

am an,

Karen Casey
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development

Attachment