Battling Battle River
Question: I’ve heard that Battle River School Division No. 31 has given termination notices to continuing contract teachers. What’s going on?
Answer: The Battle River school division cited a need to reduce the number of teachers because of reduced government funding and a drop in student enrolment.
The Battle River school division cited a need to reduce the number of teachers because of reduced government funding and a drop in student enrolment.
The division had school principals identify “surplus” teachers in individual schools where reductions in full-time equivalency (FTE) were occurring. The superintendent of schools then recommended termination of contract for those identified as surplus. As a result of these actions, approximately 20 teachers on continuing contract received termination notices.
Even though these teachers’ contracts were with the school division and not with individual schools, the teachers were not considered for assignments at other schools in the division. As employees of the school division, these teachers should have been considered for positions throughout the division; the school division should have reconfigured its staffing to accommodate teachers on continuing contracts. Ordinarily, such accommodation occurs as school divisions allow temporary, probationary and interim contracts to lapse and make those positions available to teachers with continuing contracts. Alternatively, school divisions can make positions that become available through attrition available to those with continuing contracts who have been declared surplus. It should be noted that Battle River School Division was looking at a reduction of 34 FTEs. In the notices of recommended termination, it was stated that there were 41 noncontinuing contracts that could lapse and 15 positions that would be eliminated through attrition. Therefore, there was no need to terminate continuing contracts.
All this notwithstanding, the superintendent served approximately 20 notices to recommend termination of continuing contracts and did not offer the affected teachers a position at schools where assignments were being filled by teachers on temporary contract. This meant that these positions would be offered to persons to whom the school division has no contractual obligation, while ignoring those to whom they do. Also, the division initially told those affected that they would be considered for positions at their school only. This action, had it been successful, would have effectively violated the School Act and would have eroded the long-standing contract rights of teachers on continuing contracts.
Action undertaken by the ATA has led to the school division deferring the scheduled termination appeal hearings, as the division is now considering these teachers for available positions throughout the division. The Association is waiting to see if these teachers’ contractual status will be properly recognized through placement in appropriate assignments and, therefore, if the notices of recommended termination will be rescinded.
The division’s behaviour serves to destroy its relationship with its teachers. While one recognizes the challenges concerning redundancy, the termination of continuing contract teachers in these circumstances will only ensure the strongest possible response from the Association.
Questions for consideration in this column are welcome. Please address them to Gordon Thomas at Barnett House (gordon.thomas@ata.ab.ca).
