Advertisement

Interchange

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 2–22 | Cite as

Public policy and finality in teacher/board bargaining: The ontario case

  • Bryan M. Downie
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Keywords

Collective Bargaining School Board Bargaining Process Secondary School Teacher Fact Finding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Douglas, A.Industrial peacemaking. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. Downie, B.Collective bargaining and conflict resolution in education. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University Industrial Relations Centre, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. First Annual Report of the Education Relations Commission. Toronto: The Education Relations Commission, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Hameed, S. M. A.Canadian industrial relations: A book of readings. Toronto: Butterworth, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Labour Canada.Collective Bargaining Review.Google Scholar
  6. Labour Canada.Wage developments resulting from major collective bargaining settlements in Canada (Construction industry excluded).Google Scholar
  7. Legislature of Ontario Debates, Official Report (Hansard), Daily Edition, Second Session, 31st Parliament, Thursday, May 11, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. McLennan, K., & Moscow, M. “Multilateral bargaining in the public sector,”Industrial Relations Research Association, Proceedings of the Twenty-first annual winter meeting, December 1969.Google Scholar
  9. Moscow, M.Teachers and unions: The applicability of collective bargaining to public education. Philadelphia, Penn.: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Industrial Relations Unit, 1966.Google Scholar
  10. Opinion of the Education Relations Commission under section 61 (1) (h) in the matter between the Kirkland Lake Board of Education and the OSSTF, March 10, 1976. In the files of the Education Relations Commission (mimeographed).Google Scholar
  11. Opinion of the Education Relations Commission under section 61 (1) (h) in the matter between the Central Algoma Board of Education and the OSSTF, April 8, 1976. In the files of the Education Relations Commission (mimeographed).Google Scholar
  12. Opinion of the Education Relations Commission under section 61 (1) (h) in the matter between the Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education and the OSSTF, April 8, 1976. In the files of the Education Relations Commission (mimeographed).Google Scholar
  13. Opinion of the Education Relations Commission under section 61 (1) (h) in the matter between the Windsor Board of Education and the OSSTF, April 27, 1976. In the files of the Education Relations Commission (mimeographed).Google Scholar
  14. Rehmus, C. “The Fact Finder's Role.” In J. Lefknowitz, C. Nicolau, and H. Schilit,The public interest and the role of the neutral in dispute settlement. Proceedings of the Inaugural Convention of the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution, October 1973.Google Scholar
  15. Walton, R., & McKersie, R.A behavioral theory of labour negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryan M. Downie
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BusinessQueen's UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations