Hehr Lines

"Well, you know, uh, I'm not a troublemaker."

The above statement or a variation thereof from time to time occurs during a telephone conversation with a colleague who believes that they may not have been treated either fairly or in the manner to which they are entitled according to the collective agreement.

Generally it follows my making the statement "Well, you might want to file a grievance."

For a number of members the term 'grievance' obviously conjures up an image with which they are clearly uncomfortable. Unfortunately, they have a perception that only malcontents, malingerers and miscreants would initiate such a dastardly deed.

It is at this point I attempt to seize a 'teachable moment'. One need not be a rocket scientist to be aware that the pervading culture of Alberta at this time has little patience or support for pro-worker practices. Thus anything that smacks of infringing upon management rights is viewed with both skepticism and scorn. Despite this and perhaps because of it those of us with hard won collective bargaining entitlements must be constantly vigilant to ensure these rights are neither eroded nor curtailed. 'Use it or lose it' is a phrase which has some application in these instances.

Quite simply, filing a grievance has absolutely no connection with the term "troublemaker". In fact, I would suggest failure to do so when appropriate is an abrogation of personal and professional responsibility.

Clause 20.1 of our collective agreement states "Where a difference between a teacher and the Board as to the interpretation, application, operation or contravention, or alleged contravention of this agreement or as to whether such difference can be the subject of arbitration, the teacher shall have the right to present a grievance…"

The collective agreement does not call it a privilege. It does not call it a prerogative. It does not say the teacher requires permission. It states "…the teacher shall have the right to file a grievance." It should not be forgotten that both the ATA and the CBE have agreed to this clause.

Over the course of a year I receive numerous calls from teachers wondering about issues relating to their employment. With over 6,000 teacher members covered under a collective agreement with presently 24 articles, over 280 clauses, 4 appendixes, one Letter or Understanding, one Letter of Agreement and one Letter of Intent it may be assumed that there would be numerous grievances. In actuality over my years as Executive Assistant, we have averaged between ten to twenty grievances per year. It should be understood that often a grievance will apply to more than one person. An example would be the 2002 grievance regarding the Early Retirement Incentive Plan, which was filed on behalf of more than 100 Calgary public teachers.

Of those grievances filed, past practice indicates fewer than half will end up being heard by the Grievance Interpretation Committee. The others will be settled one way or another prior to a hearing. Those not settled at the committee level are sent on to the provincial ATA which will decide whether or not the issue merits being pursued at the arbitration level - whether or not the issue is pursued by the ATA is dependent upon a number of factors among them being the chances for success.

At the local level I act as the primary advocate and resource person for Calgary Public Teachers.
Among the grievances I have recently pursued are the following:
1. A grievance on behalf of a high school teacher who retired at the end of the first semester, expecting to receive half a year's salary. Unfortunately, the School Act dictates otherwise and this grievance ended up being dropped before being heard as our chances were negligible.

2. A grievance on behalf of a teacher who had taught for the Chinook Learning ESL Summer School Program who believed she and four other colleagues had not been paid according to the collective agreement. This grievance was also resolved prior to being heard with the Board agreeing with the griever. This resulted in the grieving teachers receiving in the neighbourhood of an extra $2000.

3. A grievance was filed by a teacher who believed she had been hired as an acting consultant but was only being paid as a program teacher. Once again, after investigation the Board agreed with the griever and the teacher is now being paid as a consultant.

It should be understood that not all collective agreement grievances deal with monetary issues and the principle that one should receive what they are entitled to according to that document.

Throughout its history the union movement has often been at the forefront of human rights issues concerning discriminatory practices against workers revolving around race, religion or gender. Equal pay for equal work and maternity leave clauses are only two such issues in which advancements have been made due to the efforts of labour organizations.

On a somewhat different, but nevertheless related front, a grievance was filed in June of 2005 relating to a concern over the CBE's perceived misapplication of Clause 15.2.1.8. Succinctly put this clause states "a teacher is entitled to leave for religious holy days the observance of which is an essential tenet of the religious faith preclude the teacher from working."

The CBE did not grant approximately thirty Ismaili Muslim teachers leave under this clause to go to either Toronto or Vancouver to take part in the visit of the Aga Khan last June. Over 40,000 Ismaili Muslims attended this visit in Vancouver and 75,000 in Toronto.

In order to attend, our Ismaili Muslim colleagues were forced to use the Unspecified Leave Clause. Whether using the Religious Holy Days or Unspecified Leave clause the teacher pays the cost of the substitute. The only difference in the clause application is that in the Religious Holy Day clause the teacher has the option of providing professional service in addition to their assigned duties instead of paying the substitute cost.

This grievance was heard in October. The CBE declined to uphold the grievance and thus at the local level the grievance was lost. At this time the grievance is at the provincial level where an application for an arbitration hearing has been made. Obviously provincial association lawyers feel confident there is a strong case to be made in this situation. Although there is little to be gained in a monetary sense for our Ismaili Muslim colleagues, as an issue of fairness and principle there is a great deal.

Our colleagues who filed this grievance are exercising their collective agreement rights to seek a solution to an issue of great significance.

There is no guarantee that we will win! Obviously the Board believes their position has merit. Fortunately, our collective agreement has enshrined a process, which allows and encourages teachers to clarify their entitlements. In doing so it is clearly understood they are not troublemakers.