Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board to hear a grievance concerning a substitute teacher’s removal from the substitute list was challenged.

• Interpretation of whether collective bargaining agreement provisions, specifically Articles 15.1 and 15.9 of the PCBA, apply to substitute teachers not actively employed on the date of disciplinary action.

• Reasonableness of the Arbitration Board’s decision, including whether it exceeded its jurisdiction or made findings unsupported by evidence.

• Sufficiency of the Arbitration Board’s reasons for concluding the removal was disciplinary and within its jurisdiction.

• Distinction between “teacher” and “employee” in the context of grievance rights under the PCBA.

• Appropriateness of judicial review timing, given the parties’ agreement to bifurcate the arbitration process.

Factual background

Mr. John Dorion, a registered teacher, was engaged as a substitute teacher by the Board of Education of Saskatchewan Rivers Public School Division No. 119 on a day-to-day basis from 2019 to 2022. His employment was intermittent, with varying numbers of days worked each school year. The School Division, the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (STF), and the Government of Saskatchewan were parties to a provincial collective bargaining agreement (PCBA) effective from September 2019 to August 2023. Additionally, a local agreement (LINC) was in place between the School Division and its teachers.

The dispute arose when the School Division informed Mr. Dorion by telephone that he would be removed from the substitute teachers list, citing incidents that had occurred while he was teaching. Notably, the call occurred on a day Mr. Dorion was not working, and he was not offered STF representation during the call. The STF filed a grievance alleging violations of Articles 15.1 and 15.9 of the PCBA, claiming the decision was arbitrary or in bad faith and that the disciplinary meeting was conducted without proper representation.

Policy terms and clauses at issue

Article 15.1 of the PCBA allows grievances for violations of employment terms or for discretionary decisions made arbitrarily or in bad faith. Article 15.9 provides that a teacher requested to attend a disciplinary meeting may choose to be accompanied by a representative, and every effort should be made to provide sufficient notice of such meetings. The School Division argued these provisions did not apply to Mr. Dorion on the day of the call since he was not actively employed, and thus the Arbitration Board lacked jurisdiction.

Arbitration Board’s preliminary determination

The parties agreed to submit the issue of jurisdiction to the Arbitration Board based on an agreed statement of facts. The Arbitration Board found that nothing in Article 15 expressly or impliedly excluded substitute teachers from its protections in these circumstances and concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the grievance. The Board reasoned that the removal was disciplinary in nature, as it was directly related to incidents during Mr. Dorion’s employment as a substitute teacher.

Judicial review application

The School Division sought judicial review, arguing the Arbitration Board exceeded its jurisdiction, made findings unsupported by evidence, and provided insufficient reasons. The Court considered whether the application was premature, referencing recent case law but ultimately finding that, due to the parties’ agreement to bifurcate the arbitration, judicial review was appropriate at this stage.

Analysis of the Arbitration Board’s decision

The Court reviewed the relevant statutory and collective bargaining agreement provisions, emphasizing the definitions of “teacher” and “grievance” under The Education Act, 1995, and the broad language of the PCBA. The Court found the Arbitration Board’s approach reasonable, noting that the Board appropriately considered the context of substitute teachers and the rights and obligations arising from their employment. The Court rejected the School Division’s argument that the Board had delved into the merits of the grievance, finding instead that the Board’s inference that the removal was disciplinary was reasonable and supported by the facts and the School Division’s own submissions.

The Court also found the Board’s reasons sufficient, particularly regarding the applicability of the PCBA to all teachers and the distinction between this case and other cases cited by the School Division, where more restrictive collective agreement language excluded certain employees from grievance procedures.

Ruling and outcome

The Court dismissed the School Division’s application for judicial review, upholding the Arbitration Board’s jurisdiction to hear the grievance. Costs were awarded to the STF in the amount of $5,000.00 under Column 2. The successful party in this matter was the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation, representing Mr. Dorion, with the School Division ordered to pay costs.