weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/workplace/archives/cat_k12_iss -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 10/13/2005
Last Visited: 12/6/2007
"What the court order means is that the BCTF cannot use any assets, whether they are financial, building, phone, fax," said Michael Hancock, in-house counsel for the employers' association, which bargains for B.C.'s 60 school boards.
"They cannot use any of those assets, nor can any of its locals use any of those sorts of assets, to facilitate a continuing breach of the court order," he told reporters.
...
Hancock added the employers' association will be asking for the penalty phase -- where fines or other penalties may be imposed -- to "happen as soon as possible.
...
We believe the court has found a very innovative way of ensuring that the BCTF does not continue to finance or otherwise support this illegal job action," said association lawyer Michael Hancock."We hope teachers will come back to work and we'll be able to open our schools again quickly.
"This is more likely to be effective than any fine that the court could impose given the financial assets of the federation," he said, since fines for civil contempt in labour disputes have traditionally ranged from $80,000 to $150,000.
...
Hancock said the ruling sends a clear message to the union.
...
School board lawyer Michael Hancock said the restrictions will put a severe crimp in the union's ability to maintain its defiant walkout, called to fight a government-imposed two-year contract that provides no wage increase and no improvement in working conditions.In 2001, the government declared teachers an essential service, making the strike illegal.
"What the court has, in fact, ordered is that the BCTF can't use any of its assets . . . whether liquid cash assets, offices, records . . . to pursue this illegal strike," Mr. Hancock said.
...
It is also not totally clear from the court order whether other labour organizations, such as the Federation of Labour, would be allowed to assist the teachers, but the school boards' Mr. Hancock said such a move would definitely be "against the spirit" of Judge Brown's decision.