McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
Government Intervention in Collective
Bargaining for Teachers in Quebec
“He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
An appropriate epilogue to existing Government Policy.
Prior to 1964 the educational organization of Quebec was based
mainly on local school boards, of which there were more than 1,500.
These school boards were responsible for education at both the
elementary and secondary
levels in their respective areas. The
teachers whom they employed either held individual contracts with
the school board or were under a collective agreement between the
teachers’ association and the school board. Financing education was
largely the responsibility of the local school board which fulfilled its
responsibilities by levying a real estate tax on the property owners
in its area. In the cases where school boards were unable to raise
sufficient funds, the Government provided a subsidy to them to
cover the difference.
In 1964 two major legislative changes occurred in the Province.
The first of these was the amending of the Labour Code1 granting
the teachers the right to strike. The second was the establishment
of the Department of Education,2 also known as Bill 60.
The outcome was predictable. On the one hand the teachers had
now obtained the right to strike resulting in their demands in
negotiations becoming more and more costily for the school boards.
The greatest increase could be pinpointed as teachers’ salaries.
Another area to which teachers paid greater attention was that of
participation in decision making wherever educational policies were
in the making.
On the other hand with the establishment of the Department of
Education, the Government became increasingly involved in edu-
cational policy making throughout the Province. The fact that the
negotiated settlements were becoming more and more costly meant
that the Government was asked to contribute larger amounts. Thus
1 12-13 Eliz. II, S.Q., 1964, c. 45.
2 12-13 Eliz. II, S.Q., 1964, c. 15.
No. 13
NOTES
the Government felt that it had to find controls to both of the above
situations.
Initially the Government tried to impose restrictions in a flexible
manner. The Department of Education simply stated that inadmissible
expenditures were entirely the responsibility of the school board,
which could impose a surtax of 10% of the normal tax rate on
immoveable property. If this amount was insufficient to meet the
additional expense, then the Department undertook to pay one-half
of the balance remaining.
The inevitable, of course, occurred. Costs went up and were
attributed largely to the negotiated settlements between school boards
and teachers’ associations.
introduced
the Department
When this Government Policy failed to stop the rising costs of
the “October 14th, 1966
education,
Norms.” These were a series of controls which virtually paralyzed
local negotiations. Firstly, they contained a salary scale which was
not a minimum scale, but a maximum scale. Then, among other
things, it required the school boards to have their negotiated settle-
ment approved by the Department before it could come into force.
It did not take long before the first of many teacher strikes
occurred. With the introduction of this “third party” into local
negotiations, the true meaning of collective bargaining in the sense
of the Labour Code, became meaningless. An agreement would be
reached according to established procedures and nullified by the
“third party” because it did not conform to “its” restrictions.
When teachers’ associations were unable to settle their contract
disputes by using the long accepted methods of negotiations, they
exercised their right to strike according to the Labour Code. In
February of 1967 there were approximately 13,000 teachers out on
strike affecting some 291,000 pupils, all because the school boards
were ham-strung by the Government and its norms. With this
situation causing a great deal of public unrest, the Government
imposed its “coup de grace”, Bill 25, on February 17, 1967 under
the dubious title of: An Act to ensure for children the right to
education and to institute a new schooling collective agreement plan.3
The result of this piece of legislation was twofold.
1. It forced all of the striking teachers back to work by establish-
ing a salary scale and removing the right to strike from all teachers
until June 30th, 1968. It also extended existing collective agreements
3 15-16 Eliz. II, S.Q., 1966-67, c. 63.
McOILL LAW JOURNAL
CVo1. 16
until the above date. All collective agreements under negotiation
would be required to contain the salary scale of Bill 25.
2. It established a procedure by which all negotiations would
be carried out at the Provincial level, the parties being the Govern-
ment, the Federation of Catholic School Commissions, and the Quebec
Association of Protestant School Boards on the one hand, and the
Quebec Teachers Corporation, The Provincial Association of Catholic
Teachers and the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers on
the other hand.
With the removal of negotiations from the local level, the local
school board and teachers’ association had lost what was once
considered their right to negotiate a collective agreement. Their
responsibility now could only consist of implementing the provincially
negotiated agreement after a token signature makes it a binding
contract between the two parties.
It became obvious that the school boards had relinquished their
right to negotiate with the teachers they employed. They would not
take a definite stand on the issue and constantly used the Govern-
ment as their scapegoat when it came to a question of money.
On the teachers’ side these events had far reaching effects on
their organizational structures. One of the most difficult to overcome
was changing the basic strong locally oriented structure into a strong
provincially oriented one. In many instances what were strong local
associations proved to be less than effective associations when pro-
vincial orientation had to be undertaken. The explanation was that
since the action was now so far from the individual member in the
classroom it was difficult to arouse interest. In addition, many
association leaders were very pessimistic about the Government,
the legislative body, being a full partner in the negotiations. Many
felt that the Government would simply pass additional legislation
if it felt that things were not going according to plans.
The following is an example to illustrate the determination of the
Government in its Provincial Policy. When June 30th, 1968 came
and went without a settlement, it passed Bill 43,4 which states in part:
… Every collective agreement within the meaning of the Act 15-16 Elizabeth
II, chapter 63, which takes effect during the period between the 30th of
June 1968 and the 1st of July 1970, between an association of teachers
and a school board within the meaning of the said act or an association
of such school boards shall be deemed to contain every provision negotiated
and approved at the provincial level in accordance with section 15 of the
said Act.
4 17 Eliz. II, S.Q., 1968, c. 62, s. 4.
Xo. 1
NOTEIS
This was done in order to ensure that no locally negotiated
collective agreements would come into force before the conclusion
of the provincial negotiations.
I should mention here that there were also elements in certain
teachers’ associations that favoured provincial negotiations. The
Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers and the Provincial
Association of Catholic Teachers were heavily against provincial
negotiations, while the Quebec Teachers’ Federation (CEQ) voted
in favour of provincial negotiations by a majority of three votes
out of over 211 ballots cast.
The question as to whether negotiations will ever return to the
local level is one over which a great deal of pessimism is expressed
by many association leaders. For all intents and purposes with the
Government action in other public and quasi-public sectors, it seems
that there is little hope of this ever occurring.
In the explanatory notes of Bill 235 recently approved by the
National Assembly we find the following:
The main object of this bill is to establish a Department of the Civil
Service whose functions will be to prepare and propose to the government
measures for increasing the efficiency of the personnel of the civil service,
to supervise the application of such measures and, under the direction of
the government, to co-ordinate the carrying out of the same; it will also
advise the government on the conditions of employment of the personnel
of the public sector and negotiate, on behalf of the government, collective
agreements to which the latter is a party and co-ordinate the carrying
out thereof. The department will also be especially responsible for the
preparation of plans of organization dealing with all the civil servants
required for the administration of the government and of its departments
and bodies, and with the assignment and use of such civil servants.
In negotiations recently completed
in the quasi-public sector
including such groups as the hospital employees, police and firemen,
Hydro-workers and CEGEP professors, Government participation
was far greater than during previous negotiations.
In concluding, I would simply suggest that there seems absolutely
no hope for returning to local negotiation in any of the public and
including teachers. I foresee an
quasi-public service departments
even greater centralization tendency in this area. Marcel Masse,
now Minister of Inter-Governmental Affairs, stated, at the Conference
on Labour Relations in the quasi-public sector, that the whole concept
of bargaining for the quasi-public employees had to undergo change
and particularly the number and make-up of negotiating bodies
–
G Civil Service Department Act, 18-19 Eliz. II, 1969, c. 14.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
had to be “rethought”. Too many separate syndical units had tended
to complicate negotiations, especially when negotiations were carried
out at the provincial level. It stands to reason that the Government
would want to increase its participation in establishing budgetary
controls through participation in negotiations since, as I stated at
the outset, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.”
What role did the teachers play in this evolution from local to
provincial negotiations? It is my opinion that the Government used
the teachers in order to feel its way with this new centralization
policy and when it saw that very little and disorganized opposition
was expressed, it took the necessary steps to further implement
its goals.
Peter KRAUSE
*Chief Negotiator and Economic Welfare Co-ordinator for the Provincial
Association of Protestant Teachers.
