British Columbia
Public School Employers’
Association
400 - 1333 West Broadway
Telephone: (604) 730-0739
e-mail: bcpsea.bc.ca
Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1
Fax: (604) 730-0787
http://www.bcpsea.bc.ca
Teacher Collective Bargaining
The First Round of Provincial Bargaining:
The BC Experience
Resource/Discussion Paper
January 2001
Prepared by H.J. Finlayson
The First Round of Provincial Bargaining: The BC Experience
Please direct any questions or comments regarding this paper to:
H. J. (Hugh) Finlayson, Executive Director ...............................(604) 730-4515
hughf@bcpsea.bc.ca
© 2001 British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association
Every effort has been taken to ensure that these materials comply with the requirements of
copyright clearances and appropriate credits. BCPSEA will attempt to incorporate
in future printings any corrections that are communicated to us.
The First Round of Provincial Bargaining: The BC Experience
The First Round of Provincial Bargaining: The BC Experience
Contents
The Right to Bargain Collectively: An Overview .................... 2
Provincial Teacher Bargaining: The First Round ...................... 6
A Legislated Collective Agreement .............................................. 9
A Perspective ................................................................................... 11
Conclusion ....................................................................................... 16
Epilogue ............................................................................................ 17
Appendix A — Legislation
Bill 21, 1996: Education and Health Collective
Bargaining Assistance Act
Bill 39, 1998: Public Education Collective Agreement Act
Appendix B — “Gaining Full Bargaining Rights,”
BCTF Teacher, April 2000
Appendix C — Frames of Reference and
Organizational Philosphy
Appendix D — Transitional Collective Agreement
(June 17, 1996 – June 30, 1998)
Appendix E — Agreement in Committee
(July 1, 1998 – June 30, 2001)
References
 iii 
The First Round of Provincial Bargaining: The BC Experience
Teacher Collective Bargaining
The First Round of Provincial
Bargaining
This resource/discussion paper has two distinct purposes. The first is to
review the historical record with respect to the first round of provincial
teacher collective bargaining under the structures established by the Public
Sector Employers Act and the Public Education Labour Relations Act. The
second is to promote thinking and dialogue as the British Columbia Public
School Employers’ Association (BCPSEA) prepares for the 2001 round of
provincial bargaining.
The paper sets out propositions and provides a perspective on why events
occurred as they did. An understanding of events and the implications
for the next round of bargaining provide a firm foundation to strategically
plan for the 2001 round.
On July 30, 1998, the provincial legislature passed Bill 39, the Public
Education Collective Agreement Act (Appendix A), which ended the first
round of provincial collective bargaining between the British Columbia
Teachers’ Federation (BCTF), the certified bargaining agent for the
province’s public school teachers, and BCPSEA, the accredited bargaining
agent for the province’s 60 public school boards.
The legislation imposed an Agreement in Committee (AiC) negotiated
between the BCTF and representatives of the provincial government.
BCPSEA was not involved in the AiC negotiations. When the agreement
was subsequently submitted to school boards for ratification in early June
1998, it was rejected.
Was the inability of the BCTF and BCPSEA to negotiate a provincial
collective agreement a failure of the process, a result of irreconcilable
interests, a clash of ideologies, an unworkable bargaining structure or a
combination of all four?
—1—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
The Right to Bargain Collectively: An Overview
Prior to 1987, teachers bargained locally under a regime that restricted the
bargaining scope to salaries and bonuses. Bargaining could be conducted
on an optional regional (zonal) basis. Bargaining duration was limited by
a legislated cut-off date(s) and impasses were resolved by mandatory
interest arbitration.
Employee working conditions and local policies concerning the delivery
of services were typically covered by school board policy. In some cases,
what were termed working and learning conditions agreements were
voluntarily negotiated by local school boards and local teachers’
associations.
In 1987, two pieces of legislation were passed that structurally changed
the relationship between teachers, principals, and their employers. Bill 19,
the Industrial Relations Reform Act was passed, replacing the Labour Code.
Bill 19 included teachers under the definition of “employees” in the
Industrial Relations Act. Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act was passed,
providing for voluntary membership in the BCTF, but excluding
principals and vice-principals. Bill 20 also proposed a structural
distinction between a professional association of teachers and a labour
union.1 Teachers had the option of choosing an association model with
limited bargaining scope and arbitration for resolving disputes, or a union
model with full scope collective bargaining with the right to strike. The
BCTF organized and coordinated a union organizing drive throughout the
province with the result that every teacher local opted for the union
model.
The Teaching Profession Act also created the BC College of Teachers
(BCCoT), which was now responsible for the professional activities of
teachers. Prior to this, the BC Ministry of Education issued teaching
certificates. Under the new Act, a council was established that was
responsible for teacher certifications. The council was composed of 20
members  15 elected teachers, 4 appointed government officials and one
member appointed by the deans of education in BC. Originally, this
structure was intended to empower the BC College of Teachers rather
than the BCTF, with respect to professional activities. However, BCTF-
Thomason, Terry. “Labour Relations in Primary and Secondary Education” in Public Sector Collective
Bargaining in Canada. Eds. Swimmer, G. and Thompson, M. IRC Press, 1995. 285.
1
—2—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
supported candidates won all 15 of the elected positions, allowing the
BCTF to gain control of the college.
Between 1987 and 1994, locally certified teachers’ associations and the
province’s 75 local school boards negotiated collective agreements.
Without exception, the collective agreements were extensive, complex
instruments covering all manner of working conditions and
compensation.
The BCTF, through active coordination and organizational discipline, was
able to foster a degree of uniformity in the bargaining approach, resulting
in similar bargaining outcomes across the province. School boards, in
contrast, were not able to exercise the same level of discipline or
coordination.
On March 6, 1992, the provincial government established the Commission
of Inquiry into the Public Service and Public Sector with
mediator/arbitrator Judi Korbin as commissioner. The mandate of the
commission was to:

“examine the human resource practices of the public sector; and

propose a new framework of human resource management that allows
government to meet the public’s demand for services within fiscal
limitations.”
Human resources, with specific emphasis on labour relations in the public
education sector, were among the areas of inquiry and recommendation
by the Commission. The Commission made the following observations
about teacher collective bargaining based on employer submissions:
The commission also received numerous submissions concerning the need to
establish a method of balancing the power of the parties for collective bargaining
purposes. Put another way, there is a perception of a power imbalance. It is believed
by many that there are powerful local teachers’ associations acting in concert with a
more powerful central teachers’ federation, whipsawing individual school boards
into accepting teachers’ bargaining demands because, on a district-by-district basis,
they are not able to resist those demands. Consequently, it is perceived that school
boards are forced to agree to teachers’ settlements beyond the funding ability of a
particular district.
Excerpt from Volume 2 - Final Report - Commission of Inquiry into the Public
Service and Public Sector, page F-20
The BCTF, speaking for local teachers’ associations, observed:
—3—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
Centralization is often seen as having negative consequences for the bargaining and
representation process. These consequences include a reduction in the local flexibility
and autonomy of both management and workers and a restriction of the scope of
worker participation. As a result, the workers may become alienated and frustrated,
and hence less productive and more prone to both official and unofficial strike
action.
Given the importance of negotiations with the district’s teachers on matters that are
critical to good school programs and practices, the heart of the trustees’ mandate
would be taken away by centralization. It’s not just bargaining. Proposals for
centralization of this critical function really raise the question as to whether any
meaningful role remains for trustees, or even for local boards as institutions.
Excerpt from Volume 2 - Final Report - Commission of Inquiry into the Public
Service and Public Sector, page F-17
The BCTF, in its first recommendation to the Commission on page F-18,
recommended a continuation of local bargaining.
Collective Bargaining for teachers – a right long withheld from them – must be
upheld and continued on the basis of direct negotiations with their employers, the
school board in each district.
Excerpt from Volume 2 - Final Report - Commission of Inquiry into the Public
Service and Public Sector, page F-18
Stakeholders in the employer community, however, recommended a form
of centralized bargaining, although no particular model was proposed.
On July 9, 1993, the Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public
Service and Public Sector (Korbin Commission) was released, establishing
the basis for legislative initiatives to change the structure of the public
sector. Soon after, on July 27, Bill 78, the Public Sector Employers Act (PSEA)
was passed, establishing the Public Sector Employers’ Council (PSEC) and
employers’ associations in six sectors of the public sector:






health
social services
K-12 public education
colleges and institutes
universities
crown corporations, agencies, and commissions.
—4—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
Bill 78, the Public Sector Employers Act, established the following mandate
for the associations.
Public Sector Employers' Associations
1) An employers' association must be established for each sector other than the
public service sector.
2) The purposes of an employers' association are to coordinate the following
with respect to a sector:
(a)
compensation for employees who are not subject to collective
agreements;
(b)
benefit administration;
(c)
human resource practices;
(d)
collective bargaining objectives.
3) In addition, it is a purpose of an employers' association
(a)
to foster consultation between the association and representatives of
employees in that sector, and
(b)
to assist the council in carrying out any objectives and strategic
directions established by the council for the employers' association.
Excerpt from Public Sector Employers Act, page 5
As a result, BC’s K-12 sector changed significantly. In May 1994, BCPSEA
was formed. On June 7, Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act
(PELRA) was passed, which established BCPSEA as the accredited
bargaining agent for all school boards and the BCTF as the certified
bargaining agent for all public school teachers in the province.
Employer bargaining agent
4
The employers' association
(a) is deemed to be the accredited bargaining agent for every school board
in British Columbia, and
(b) has exclusive authority to bargain collectively for the school boards and
to bind the school boards by collective agreement.
—5—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
Employee bargaining agent
6 (1) The British Columbia Teachers' Federation
(a) is deemed to be the certified bargaining agent for the employees in the
bargaining unit,
Excerpt from Public Education Labour Relations Act, page 3
Section 3 of the Public Education Labour Relations Act established, in
general, the scope of bargaining:
(3) All cost provisions, within the meaning set out in subsection (4), are deemed to
be Provincial matters.
(4) In subsection (3), “cost provisions” includes all provisions relating to
(a) salaries and benefits,
(b) workload, including, without limitation, class size restrictions, and
(c) time worked and paid leave
that affect the cost of the collective agreement.
Excerpt from Public Education Labour Relations Act, page 4
From May through August of 1994, the BCPSEA Constitution and Bylaws
were developed in accordance with the provisions of PELRA.
Provincial Teacher Bargaining: The First Round
With few exceptions, local school boards and local teachers’ associations
negotiated three full-scope collective agreements between 1987 and 1994.
By coincidence most of the collective agreements were set to expire on
June 30, 1994, when the legislative structures were created to facilitate
provincial bargaining.
The Public Education Labour Relations Act required that the parties
negotiate which matters would be dealt with at each local bargaining table
and which matters would be negotiated provincially. In April 1995, the
BCTF and BCPSEA completed the ‘split of issues’  all substantive issues,
including monetary provisions, were placed at the provincial table. The
local matters were those having limited importance with respect to
working conditions and had no monetary impact.
—6—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
The employer and the union bargaining agents approached both the
process and content of the negotiations differently. BCPSEA employed an
‘interest-based’ approach, which was loosely based on the principles
articulated in the best selling book on the subject, Getting to Yes (Fisher
and Ury, 1983).
Interest-based or ‘mutual gains’ bargaining is supposed to improve the
relationship between the parties because the resulting framework is based
largely on how each cultivates their mutual relationship. The approach
should also yield more judicious agreements because the parties are
encouraged to openly discuss their needs and fundamental interests, as
well as basing their agreement on objective criteria (Fisher, Ury, and
Patton, 1991).
Many school districts felt that since this was the first provincial
agreement, the parties would sit down and explore their respective
interests and craft a collective agreement that was in the interests of
teachers, school boards, and most importantly, school children.
BCPSEA invited the BCTF to participate in joint interest-based bargaining
training, but the federation declined. BCPSEA based its approach on the
belief that, technically, no collective agreement existed and the parties
were essentially creating a first collective agreement. This became known
as the ‘blank slate’ theory.
There was also the feeling that employers had been the victim of an
‘uneven playing field’ and, as employers testified in the Korbin
Commission proceedings, there was a need to balance the power between
employers and the union. This led to the conclusion that the gains made
by teachers in this unbalanced system needed to be redressed, and this
‘first agreement’ was viewed as the opportunity to do so.
The BCTF had a different view. It believed that the system of local unionlocal school board bargaining was the appropriate system. Further, they
rejected outright the concept of a ‘blank slate.’ It was the BCTF’s view that
there were 75 collective agreements, and those collective agreements were
the product of much hard work and sacrifice. The BCTF took the position
that the 75 collective agreements were the basis from which to negotiate.
The BCTF would later describe the BCPSEA approach as nothing more
than ‘contract stripping’  an attempt to take away the rights of teachers.
The parties began negotiations in May 1995. The BCTF, as was the practice
at local bargaining tables, submitted an extensive set of proposals in
—7—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
collective agreement form. BCPSEA, however, consistent with their
interest-based approach, had no such proposals. Rather, when issues were
discussed, it distributed ‘interest statements’ in an attempt to engage the
BCTF bargaining team in a discussion.
It can be observed that in practice, the approach adopted by the employers
had many of the trappings of true interest-based bargaining, but none of
the theoretical or strategic rigour. The approach gave no weight to the
absence of a pre-existing bargaining relationship between the BCTF and
BCPSEA, or proper treatment of the integrative (problem solving) and
distributive principles underlying the interest-based bargaining model.
A leading scholar in negotiation theory and practice, J.E. CutcherGershenfeld, made instructive comments in his 1994 article, Bargaining
Over How to Bargain in Labor-Management Negotiations, which can be
applied to this interest-based experience:
A close look at the interest based experiments in labour relations reveals that
adversarial institutional patterns have often been rejected in favor of more
collaborative, problem solving techniques without a full appreciation of the
underlying reasons for the establishment of the original institutional patterns.
Between May 1995 and April 1996, little progress was made and the
provincial government, with an election expected, called the parties to
Victoria in an attempt to facilitate a transitional agreement. In May 1996, a
Transitional Collective Agreement (TCA) was reached and ratified by
both parties. School board ratification was on a weighted vote basis. 54%
of the total school board votes cast were in favour of the TCA. It provided
for a rollover of existing language, a small compensation increase, and
some new provisions that dealt predominantly with standard collective
agreement issues, such as the grievance procedure. The agreement also
established the basis for continued negotiations. The transitional
agreement expired on June 30, 1998, and required the parties to resume
negotiations in March 1997.
Following this experience, some circles in the K-12 employer community
rejected interest-based bargaining as unsound and not adaptable to ‘real
world’ collective bargaining, rather than examining the theory and its
application in this case.
—8—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
A Legislated Collective Agreement
In September 1997, the parties resumed negotiations. BCTF and BCPSEA
agreed to submit written proposals. The BCTF recast their original
proposals, and BCPSEA, in a departure from their interest-based
bargaining approach, submitted a comprehensive set of proposals in the
form of a collective agreement, much like the BCTF had done. The parties
were still operating within the bargaining context and environment that
had existed before the transitional agreement.
These events led up to the legislated agreement:
March 1997
The parties discussed the resumption of
negotiations. BCTF requested additional time to
prepare proposals, and BCPSEA used this time to
consult with school boards on future directions
with respect to bargaining objectives.
September 1997
The parties resumed negotiations for a provincial
collective agreement. Both parties tabled written
proposals. BCPSEA proposals assumed no
increase in government funding, as was the
indication from government at the time — the
“fully fund the bargain” stance.
November 5, 1997
The Minister of Education called the BCTF and
BCPSEA together and directed them to make more
progress at the bargaining table. The Minister
requested the parties pare down their respective
agendas and enter into an accelerated negotiation
process. He suggested that government
representatives could assist the parties if they so
chose.
November 6, 1997
The bargaining teams met and discussed their
respective approaches to bargaining, given the
Minister’s direction.
February 4, 1998
BCTF and BCPSEA tabled their respective
proposals.
February 11, 1998
The parties entered into an accelerated process,
but the BCTF showed no willingness to discuss
—9—
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
issues of interest to school boards, and BCPSEA
stated that it would not agree to proposals if
funding was not assured. BCPSEA indicated that
they would be asking government to act in a
facilitating role consistent with the Minister’s
earlier invitation.
April 3, 1998
Government representatives began their
facilitation effort and reported to BCPSEA that
they and the BCTF were continuing to discuss
early retirement, the kindergarten to Grade 3
initiative, non-enrolling staffing levels, and a
three-year term with an increase of 0 in the first
two years and 2% in the third year. If these
discussions progressed, government
representatives would assist the BCTF and
BCPSEA in negotiating a complete collective
agreement.
Early April 1998
Government representatives refused to disclose to
BCPSEA the nature of their continuing discussions
with the BCTF.
April 17, 1998
The Premier and the BCTF publicly announced the
Agreement in Committee (AiC) with additional
funding to support the agreement reached.
BCPSEA is informed at the same time the public
announcement is made. BCPSEA is asked to
submit the AiC to member school boards for
ratification.
April 17-June 8,
1998
A series of regional meetings were held by
BCPSEA to explain the implications of the
agreement reached without their input.
June 8-16, 1998
School boards conducted their ratification votes by
the June 18, 1998 deadline. BCPSEA announced
the results  87.6% of total school board votes
rejected the agreement. Provincial ratification
votes are conducted on a weighted basis by
student population.
— 10 —
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
June 25, 1998
Bill 39, the Public Education Collective Agreement
Act, was introduced in the legislature.
July 30, 1998
Public Education Collective Agreement Act became
law and imposed, through legislation, the AiC.
The BCTF was the first large public sector union to settle under the Public
Sector Employers’ Council 0%-0%-2% compensation mandate,
establishing a precedent for the public sector settlements that followed.
It became evident as events unfolded that achieving a precedent setting
settlement was the overriding government priority.
A Perspective
Perspective: a specific point of view in understanding or judging things or events; or
that shows them in their true relations to one another
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1986, page 1062
The approach that employers take to formal relationships in the
workplace is crucial, because the workplace is influenced by their values
and beliefs about the legitimacy of managerial authority and the
distribution of power in the organization. Appendix C provides a
summary of two of the key theories. These theories are subjective and
represent one way of describing industrial relations — the social relations
among people at work. Industrial relations is at some level about power
relations and how parties deal with conflict. These theories are adequate
for our purposes as they provide a basis for discussion. 2
Generally, employers in the K-12 sector have operated, and in some cases
still operate, from a unitarist frame of reference. This frame of reference
holds that school districts and schools are held together by a common
ideology that unites all parties. In part, it is a belief that education is a
professional endeavour focused on the needs of students. It is the focus on
students and the organization of the workplace that leads to a difference
Human Resources is given to mean decisions and activities involving individuals or groups of individuals
that are intended to influence the effectiveness of employees and the organization. Labour relations is the
aspect of human resources concerned with the continuous relationship between a group of employees
(represented by a union) and an employer. Industrial relations is the general term that is given to mean the
social relations among people at work.
2
— 11 —
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
of opinion on how best to meet the common goal of achieving ‘what is
best for students.’
The workplace has traditionally been organized with a rigid hierarchy.
The superintendent is the senior educator and chief executive officer of the
board. There are assistant superintendents and directors of instruction
who report to the superintendent for a variety of educational and
operational areas in the system.
School principals, sometimes assisted by vice-principals, are the
representatives of management closest to individual teachers. At one time,
principals and vice-principals were members of the BCTF, but with the
advent of collective bargaining in 1987 these positions were excluded from
the bargaining unit.
This model of workplace organization is based on the basic assumption
that:

education is a professional endeavour focused on the needs of students
and further,

this focus is considered a unifying force for members of an
organization.
It is held, therefore, that because of this unifying force, management and
employees have cooperative attitudes and values. While there may be
differences of opinion, conflicts can be resolved.
In 1987, the Teaching Profession Act provided the province’s teachers with
essentially two options. For the first time, teachers could organize
themselves on a district-by-district basis and bargain collectively with
their employer pursuant to the labour legislation of the day — the
Industrial Relations Act. Or they could opt to become an association with
no recognized collective bargaining rights.
It was felt by the government that teachers would opt for the second
option and remain ‘professionals’ rather than become ‘trade unionists.’
Instead, within a short time, teachers in each school district chose the
collective bargaining model, and local teachers’ associations were certified
as the bargaining agents for teachers in their respective school districts.
The BCTF organized the certification effort and then the negotiation of the
first collective agreements. In the April 2000 edition of the BCTF Teacher,
Ken Novakowski, Executive Director of the BCTF, provided an instructive
— 12 —
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
assessment of the 1987 period in his article, “Gaining Full Bargaining
Rights” (see Appendix B).
The first rounds of bargaining between the local school boards and the
local teachers’ associations/unions included typical collective bargaining
issues, such as the term of the agreement and the grievance procedure.
The issues that were subject to negotiation also included working
conditions, such as evaluations, posting, transfer, lay off and recall, and
the terms of tenure.
In later rounds, matters such as class size and composition, and
professional autonomy provisions were negotiated. Until this time, these
issues had been the sole responsibility of the employer. Even in districts
where the parties had voluntarily negotiated working and learning
conditions agreements, the employer had the unilateral right to set the
terms and conditions of employment.
Despite the structural changes that have occurred since, many of the
attitudes that were consistent with the pre-1987 workplace remain today
and help explain the union-management relationship in some workplaces.
This is not to suggest that one model of workplace organization is
preferable or more appropriate than another but rather to make an
observation as to the divergent views and perspectives of decision makers
in the K-12 sector.
There are 60 employers in the public education sector. Prior to school
district amalgamation in 1996 there were 75. How each employer
manages human resources is determined locally based on a complex web
of priorities within a unique organizational culture. Identifying an
employer’s frame of reference is important when providing advice or
developing bargaining strategies, since it sets the criteria the employer
uses for making judgements and the filters for the evidence and
information that is received.
The structural change, from having the terms and conditions of
employment determined either unilaterally by the employer or in
consultation with employees or employee representatives, to having fullscope collective bargaining with a certified bargaining agent and the right
to strike, was a substantial change for individual teachers, teacher
representatives, school boards, and school district management.
The acceptance by a majority of teachers of collective bargaining signaled
the acceptance by teachers of a pluralist theory of workplace organization,
— 13 —
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
with its underlying assumptions of the teachers’ inferior economic and
power position in relation to the employer. It also signaled their
acceptance that collective bargaining was the appropriate mechanism for
achieving consensus concerning working conditions and compensation —
viewed as the basis for long term stability in employee/employer
relations.
While there may be groups within the BCTF or local associations that
subscribe to more radical perspectives, they pursue their agendas while
recognizing that collective bargaining with its pluralist foundation is
preferable to the alternatives.
It was into this historical context that the BCTF, now the certified
bargaining agent for all public school teachers in the province, and
BCPSEA, now the accredited bargaining agent for all school boards,
entered into the first round of provincial bargaining. Arguably the goal of
both parties was, after a period of negotiations, to emerge with a
provincial master agreement. This master agreement would be attached to
each local matters agreement to form the collective agreement.
Both the BCTF and BCPSEA carefully prepared for the first round. School
districts were asked by their bargaining agent to consider what was
needed to fulfill their mandate as they defined it. The school districts
reviewed their experiences before and after collective bargaining rights
were granted to teachers. As school districts indicated to the Korbin
commission, local bargaining created a power imbalance because of a
flawed local bargaining system.
This assessment shaped the bargaining agenda and mandate, which were
firmly grounded in the need for flexibility in collective agreements. The
need for flexibility meant, on the part of some, a return to the precollective bargaining period. This arguably is consistent with the unitarist
frame of reference arising out of the pre-collective bargaining period.
In contrast, the BCTF came to the bargaining table with the belief that
local collective bargaining was a preferable system and a long withheld
right, grounded in a pluralist frame of reference. The BCTF likely saw the
first round of provincial bargaining as putting at risk many of the
improvements to working conditions that it had been able to achieve since
being granted the right to bargain collectively in 1987. When the BCTF
bargaining committee saw the employers’ proposals, given their reaction,
it appears their fears were confirmed.
— 14 —
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
During the latter stages of negotiations, a vice-president of the federation
stated the BCTF’s position that improved working conditions would
create improved learning conditions. This position was at the core of
many of their bargaining strategies and proposals.
It can be observed that employers did not share this belief in the
connection between collective bargaining outcomes and student learning
conditions. In fact, the employer saw student learning conditions as an
employer responsibility and collective bargaining as an activity that
affected its ability to provide the appropriate learning conditions.
Conclusion
The reasons why a legislated agreement instead of a negotiated agreement
emerged from this process are varied and complex. They can be traced to
the values and assumptions of the participants in the process, including
the BCTF and its constituents, BCPSEA and its constituents, and the
government.
Employment relations are the product of a mixture of common interests
and competing interests. Provincial and federal legislation governing
collective bargaining within their respective jurisdictions gives evidence
as to the dominant ideology of policy makers — pluralism — which has a
profound effect on these employment relations.
An interesting feature of the BC pluralist model is the degree to which,
from time to time, government chooses to become involved and play a
pivotal role. Theoretically, government should be an impartial arbiter,
while in practice a government can act to the advantage of one party,
creating an imbalance in the employer-union bargaining relationship. In
this case, while the government ‘assisted’ the parties in achieving a
collective agreement, when it became apparent that no agreement was
possible without job action, it intervened and ultimately imposed an
agreement. Collective bargaining, to be meaningful, must be balanced.
The union and employer must be permitted to bargain with the absence of
public policy initiatives or government involvement that eliminates the
incentive for both sides to settle. It holds that if you can achieve what you
need to achieve outside the bargaining process there is no reason to
negotiate.
It can be observed that government must balance two objectives:
— 15 —
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience

allow the union and the employer the freedom to pursue their own
objectives through collective bargaining while,

limiting the costs borne by the larger society in terms of industrial
conflict, costs associated with resolving the conflict, and the
consequences resulting from out of line settlements.
How the parties chose to approach bargaining set the stage for the
outcome. Employers believed that changes to the collective agreement
were required. The BCTF believed that at the very least the status quo
had to be maintained and ideally any change had to be an improvement.
Given the events at the time, the government became concerned about the
potential for impasse, and wanted to have a precedent-setting
compensation settlement. As the record now shows the government was
unwilling to accept industrial conflict and strategically believed the
establishment of a precedent-setting agreement required their direct
intervention.
All participants in the bargaining process will have to assess the methods
that were used in the last round of negotiations and the results that were
achieved. If there is to be a true province-wide agreement, the process and
underlying values and assumptions will have to be critically examined.
The challenge will be to create a collective bargaining system that balances
the rights and responsibilities of the parties — BCTF, BCPSEA and their
respective constituents and government. This presents a substantial
challenge for the parties and the government, given the historical origins
of the right to bargain collectively in this sector, the scope of bargaining
and the experience of the first round of provincial bargaining.
Epilogue
Teacher collective bargaining and the passage of the Public Education
Collective Agreement Act raised questions about how well the Public Sector
Employers’ Council structure was working. BCPSEA requested a review
of the structure, which began in the fall of 1998. The purpose of the review
was “to consider whether the structure as a whole was meeting its
objectives, including subsidiary questions about the performance and
operations of components of the structure.” The review led to the
codification of the roles and responsibilities of the council, the council’s
secretariat, and the six employers’ associations.
— 16 —
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
With respect to BCPSEA and teacher bargaining, a review of the processes
and decisions made in the first round of bargaining has led to a
structurally different bargaining preparation exercise involving a detailed
Teacher Collective Bargaining Project (TCBP). The TCBP emphasized
analysis of the bargaining history, constituent education and engagement,
and frequent contact and input from key decision makers.
The central challenges remain, however.
1. The BCTF remains committed to local bargaining. School boards,
while initially advocating for provincial bargaining to the Korbin
Commission, struggle with the resulting loss of autonomy in a
centralized structure.
2. School boards must reconcile the positive aspect of increased
bargaining power with the potential negative consequences to
representation of constituent interests — a consequence of centralized
structures. It is a labour relations truism that “there is strength in
unity.” With unity, however, individual groups must surrender a
degree of free choice.
3. Public sector collective bargaining occurs in a political environment.
Government has an interest in the outcome and is challenged to
remain on the sidelines during difficult bargaining periods.
4. The role of BCPSEA with respect to collective bargaining is to “develop
sectoral strategies and plans consistent with their members’ interests, Public
Sector Employers’ Council objectives and government strategies.” BCPSEA
must balance what can be a mixture of common interests and
competing interests in meeting its responsibilities as articulated in the
PSEC Model Review Roles and Responsibilities (December 7, 2000).
5. The decision to move to full scope collective bargaining in 1987 and
provincial bargaining in 1994 requires further assessment, given the
experience with local bargaining and the resulting bargaining
outcomes, and provincial bargaining and the resulting bargaining
outcomes.
— 17 —
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
— 18 —
The First Round of Provincial Bargaining: The BC Experience
Appendix A —
Bill 21, 1996: Education and Health
Collective Bargaining Assistance Act
(April 28, 1996)
Bill 39, 1998: Public Education
Collective Agreement Act (July 30,
1998)
The First Round of Provincial Bargaining: The BC Experience
Appendix B —
“Gaining Full Bargaining Rights”
BCTF Teacher, April 2000
The First Round of Provincial Bargaining: The BC Experience
Appendix C —
Frames of Reference and
Organizational Philosophy
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
Appendix C —
Frames of Reference and
Organizational Philosophy
Frame of reference: The context, viewpoint, or set of presuppositions or of evaluative
criteria within which a person’s perception and thinking seem always to occur, and
which constrains selectively the course and outcome of these activities.
Ian M. Hunter, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of Keele
Whether we are aware of it or not, we live our lives according to a
philosophy  a set of values that guide our everyday thoughts and
behaviors. These values tend to remain constant. They govern how we
think and who we are. Our behavior can be traced to these fundamental
values.
Our values are based on what we believe to be true about the world.
These perceptions shape our attitudes, which in turn shape our behaviors.
Over time, these attitudes and behaviors, reinforced through repeated use,
shape our habits. Eventually, our habits shape our lives.
Organizations also have philosophies  sets of fundamental values that
define how they operate and do business. These philosophies are central
to shaping an organization’s and an individual’s frame of reference. These
fundamental values are evident in each individual’s words and actions, as
well as the systems developed by the organization.
Many people, however, dismiss these concepts as theoretical and without
meaning. In fact, they provide insight into everything we think and do.
An organization’s philosophy is the foundation of its operations, and
should serve as the basis for understanding its actions.
The beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and values of all the people in an
organization form a culture that makes it unique. It is important to
recognize, however, that the attitude of any particular member of an
organization may deviate from the institutional pattern. In these cases,
where these individuals do not have sufficient power or political support
from within the organization, they will not affect the institutional attitude.
As a result, while individuals may act differently, in general, the
organization can be characterized by its central tendency.
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
The organizational culture (“the way we do things around here”) is
central to understanding the values and beliefs about the legitimacy of
managerial authority and the distribution of power in an organization.
Each individual is socialized by experiences, which result in values and
attitudes that come to be regarded as “the way we do things around
here.” These values are reinforced by the groups that the individual
moves within, such as people in like positions and other employees.
The frame of reference that individuals adopt affects their response to the
problems they face  it determines the criteria for making judgements
and filters information they receive. The frame of reference is grounded in
their beliefs about how the workplace should be organized.
Two of the main theories of workplace organization are summarized
below and can be used as a framework for thinking generally about why
employers approach collective bargaining differently, and particularly
why consensus on labour relations and collective bargaining objectives is
challenging to achieve among the province’s 60 employers in the K-12
sector.
Unitarism
Unitarism may be described as a model of managerial thinking, attitudes,
values, and practices. According to this theory, management and
employees share the same interests and should work together towards
mutual objectives. Unitarism is based on the key assumption that the work
organization is held together by a common ideology that unites all parties.
Unitarists assume that management and workers have cooperative
attitudes and values, and often describe the two parties as a team working
together to achieve the organization’s mission (its reason for being) and
vision (its preferred future). While the two parties’ interests may diverge
from time to time, the resulting conflict will not be sustained due to the
unifying force of the their mutual objective  the survival of the
enterprise from which both earn their living.
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
Unitarism originated with the work of Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), who
believed that the only way a business can survive is to reduce costs and
increase efficiency. According to Taylor’s scientific management theory,
workers become more productive when their jobs are broken down into
simple tasks and they are given the necessary training. They are prepared
to trade off the resulting changes in working conditions for the benefit of
increased financial rewards. Taylor theorized that the relationship between
management and workers is one of mutual interest rather than inherent
conflict. The success of the enterprise benefits both employer and employee.
Scientific management provided a sound theoretical approach, but
assumed that workers behave as individuals and do not work together as
groups of individuals. However, when workers perceive common
workplace problems and act collectively, they can make demands
inconsistent with the objectives of scientific management.
The unitarist theory was further influenced by the work of Elton Mayo
(1880-1949), whose studies at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works in 1927
and 1932 led to the conclusion that workers’ productivity can be related as
much to their motivations as to the scientific organization of work.
According to human relations theory, work that is properly managed is an
integrated and harmonious activity. Workers behave more rationally if
they understand management’s need for efficiency and effectiveness, and
what management is trying to accomplish through a specific set of actions
or initiatives.
The notion of industrial peace emphasizes:





consensus and workplace harmony
the socialization of individuals into a particular culture, such as a team
culture
respect for the employee
final decision-making authority resting with management
conformity with an agenda determined by management.
Good Industrial Relations and Unitarism
From a unitarist perspective, good industrial relations lack conflict
because no inherent conflict of interest exists between management and
workers. When conflict occurs, it is short-lived and arises from a lack of
information or the inadequate presentation of management’s ideas or
policies.
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
Unitarist Frame of Reference
The unitarist frame of reference is common among individuals in
management positions. According to this perspective, all people in an
organization are working toward one goal, where there is one sense of
authority, and where resulting conflict is not sustained because of their
view of the unifying force of the mutual objective  the success of the
enterprise from which both earn their living.
Pluralism
Pluralism is a model that assumes that management and employees are
more likely to work in conflict than in harmony. The concept of collective
bargaining is central to pluralism. Pluralism and collective bargaining are
based on the belief that the employee’s inferior economic position in
relation to the employer makes a mechanism such as the individual
employment contract an unsatisfactory way to determine the price for an
individual’s work.
In a unitarist workplace, management has the unilateral right to set the
terms and conditions of employment. Pluralism assumes that the
achievement of consensus and resulting long-term stability in
management/worker relations is the best way to resolve the competing
interests of the parties. From a pluralist perspective it is argued that
mechanisms and structures such as collective bargaining are needed to
vent and relieve conflict rather than repress it, which would harm the
enterprise.
The state plays an important role in pluralist industrial relations. If there is
a balance of power between management and employees, and if collective
bargaining is the mechanism for determining the rights and obligations of
both the employer and the union, the state is responsible for ensuring that
the rules governing such processes are exercised fairly.
The question invariably arises as to whether the process of collective
bargaining and the resulting collective agreement represents a balance
from the perspective of both the employer and the union or is seen as out
of balance, favouring the interests of one over the interests of the other.
Pluralist theory assumes:

collective bargaining leads to orderly, structured operation of
management/union relations
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience





the balancing of interests of those involved in creating the organization’s
wealth and/or success
collective bargaining improves worker consultation and communication
issues can be raised in a forum where the employer must address them
the union is the best mechanism to represent the interests of employees
the state plays the role of impartial arbiter between the parties.
Good Industrial Relations and Pluralism
From a pluralist perspective, good industrial relations include both
structural and outcome components. The need for a means of identifying
and articulating the parties’ conflicting interests represents the structural
component, while the means of negotiating an accommodation of those
interests represents the outcome component. This negotiated
accommodation must be reached with the understanding that each party
will limit its claims to a level the other finds sufficiently tolerable.
Pluralist Frame of Reference
Those with a pluralist frame of reference see the organization as pluralities
of interest groups with differing and sometimes competing interests,
which may come together in alliances, although these alliances shift and
change as circumstances dictate. Whatever the long-term interdependence
of the interest groups, in their day-to-day struggle for resources and in
their operational activities, they assert sectional interests. The employer’s
role from this frame of reference is to balance the various interests to
achieve the objectives of shareholders (and or stakeholders),
customers/clients, government, and employees.
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
Appendix D — Transitional
Collective Agreement
(June 17, 1996 – June 30, 1998)
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
Appendix E —
Agreement in Committee
(July 1, 1998 – June 30, 2001)
Teacher Collective Bargaining — The BC Experience
References
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J.E., “Bargaining Over How to Bargain in LabourManagement Negotiations,” in Negotiation Journal. Volume 10 Number 4,
October 1994, Plenum Publishing New York.
Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and Public
Sector, July 9, 1993.
Fox, A. Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, Research Paper No. 3,
HMSO, London, 1966.
Sheldrake, J. Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japanization, Boston,
MA: International Thomson Business Press, 1996.
Thomason, Terry. “Labour Relations in Primary and Secondary
Education” in Public Sector Collective Bargaining in Canada. Eds. Swimmer,
G. and Thompson, M. IRC Press, 1995.
Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (1996)
Industrial Relations Reform Act (1987)
Public Education Collective Agreement Act (1998)
Public Education Labour Relations Act (1994)
Public Sector Employers Act (1993)
Teaching Profession Act (1987)
G:\Research\Research Papers\00-HF- Teacher Collective Bargaining The First Round of Provincial Bargaining The BC
Experience.doc