By Robert Green
Teachers in Quebec’s English school boards contribute a significant amount of their hard-earned wages each year to fund the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers (QPAT). In doing so, they expect QPAT to work actively to defend and advance their interests. They also expect to be part of any major decisions QPAT takes on their behalf. This is particularly true with regard to the process of negotiating and approving the collective agreements that affect all of our lives as teachers in such a direct way.
However, with the details of the most recently negotiated contract coming to light many teachers are beginning to feel that they were not adequately informed about the details of this agreement at the time that they voted. A previous two-part article entitled “Surprise! The Collective Agreement We Voted On Is Not the One We Got!” outlined in detail some of these ‘surprise’ changes.
This article will take a closer look at the democratic process by which this contract was approved and the specific information teachers were given in order to make this decision.
The Process
The first unusual aspect of the process to approve this contract was that it occurred in two parts. First, in the spring of 2010, teachers were asked to approve the agreement in principle concerning “sectorial” issues (those issues not related to salary). This portion of the agreement appeared to contain many positives, most notably reductions in class size. Then, in the fall of 2010, teachers were asked to approve the salary provisions of the agreement. This was without question the more controversial aspect of the agreement.
In the past, members have always debated the entire agreement with a single vote. Little explanation was provided as to why the approval was divided this way.
The second unusual aspect of the process to approve this contract is that when it came to the second, more controversial, vote on the salary agreement, QPAT neglected to send its usual mail-out to the members explaining the agreement. Instead it posted the document on its website. When asked at the MTA’s special general meeting why the members were not given copies of this crucially important document, the best MTA President Ruth Rosenfield could come up with was that QPAT was being “environmentally friendly”. Though copies of the info document did not make it into the schools, colour copies were on hand at the special general meeting for the few teachers who attended.
The information or lack thereof
Table 1 contrasts the information QPAT provided with the information it left out regarding 4 issues that have significant implications for teachers.
| Table 1 | ||
| Issue | Actual text from QPAT’s ‘Negotiations’ document | Important information QPAT’s document did not provide |
| New system for calculating sick days | No information whatsoever was provided on this issue |
|
| New system for salary deductions | “Clarify and make uniform the method for deciding salary cuts in a case of absence of part of a day” |
|
| New system for payment of year end bonuses | “Additional payment to teachers for added value or to target specific problems (e.g.: ECA, particular project, dropouts, etc.). This is to be negotiated in a separate letter of agreement, subject to approval by the treasury board, as an amendment to this agreement.” |
|
| New system for department heads | “Integration into the agreement of provisions concerning department heads.” |
|
In each of the four examples above, when information is given, the provision is presented in terms that are either positive or innocuous. In each case, the negative dimensions of the provision are not provided.
Even if the members had been provided a fair and balanced picture of these provisions the result of the final vote may not have changed. Nonetheless, the members of the unions that belong to QPAT have a right to make an informed decision on such important matters. The fact that the members were not given the information needed to do so raises serious questions about QPAT’s leadership and their commitment to the democratic process.
Montreal Teachers 4 Change.org 