NLTA ELECTION 2026
Questions and Answers
for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates

If I had a magic wand, I would wave it posthaste. Alas, I do not. This is indeed an issue that is laden with worry, fear, anger, and inequity. While I understand that the post-September 2006 sick leave plan was forced upon the NLTA, after it was legislated on other public sector unions in the province, it is not serving the needs of our members.

It is incumbent on the Employer to address this issue in good faith for our members. The Employer needs to recognize that the Covid-19 pandemic has opened many of our eyes to prioritizing and addressing our health and wellbeing over the tertiary needs of society. Some members are more cognizant of staying home when ill, but simply do not have the days to do so. Some members are seeing increased illness, especially since the onset of the pandemic – and again, do not have the sick leave to draw upon. Many members are also carrying responsibility for the healthcare needs of their dependents (younger and older), and this also leaves our members at a loss. The post-Sept 2006 sick leave plan disproportionately discriminates against women, those with chronic illnesses, and those that fall critically ill throughout the duration of a 20 year window. The stats of chronic illness in Newfoundland and Labrador is the highest in the Atlantic Provinces. See: The Daily — Key findings from the Health of Canadians report, 2024 Teachers are not immune from this stat. (pun not intended) Teachers do not have access to annual leave to draw upon, and teachers do not have the ability to refer their medical needs and ailments to July and August of each year.

The realization of Article 15.02c is bringing great strife and uncertainty for a large portion of our membership. To say that I can single handedly change this would be a flat out lie – and I don’t operate that way. The processes that we have in place through Collective Bargaining and Negotiations will be pivotal in advocacting on this matter – and at all times, we must be mindful that the Employer in our case maintains Sovereign power. This fact does not deter us from fighting for our membership – but this fact is indeed relevant, as the priorities of the Treasury Board are far removed from the priorities of their employees. Hence, we continue the fight.

History and context for members to consider – to establish fact and understanding

I don’t offer the following excerpt to be condescending in any fashion, rather I am motivated to work within the framework of accurate information and relevant context to push my advocacy efforts for our members.

From NLTA website:

In 2004, NAPE and CUPE engaged in a month-long strike, which was primarily in response to government’s intent to implement similar sick leave provisions in their agreement. They were eventually legislated back to work, at the end of April 2004, with the two-tiered plan they had fought so hard to avoid imposed upon them. This subsequently became a feature of all public sector collective agreements during that round, although NLTA was able to delay the impact for longer than other groups and only accepted this in return for government committing to pay $1.953 billion into the Teachers’ Pension Plan. At that point in time, the TPP was only 26.4% funded with the plan predicted to be exhausted, for all teachers, by 2014. Government’s original position was that teachers should accrue only 10 sick leave days per year (one day per month which is the approach for other groups) given their unique work year. NLTA flatly refused this, risking that government would allocate the $1.953 billion to other debt-reduction priorities and not the TPP. Government ultimately agreed to 12 days per year for teachers (1.2 days per month). While still a significant concession, this was a better deal for new employees than that which NAPE and CUPE ended up with after a month-long strike. As well, the $1.953 billion contribution to the TPP was ultimately a critical factor in enabling the Association to enter into the 2014 pension reform discussions with government from a much stronger position than would have been possible had the 2006 agreement not been ratified.

In light of this, increasing sick leave accruals for teachers is not only a huge cost item for government, it is an issue upon which they refuse to engage. Future employee sick leave entitlements represent a significant uncertainty in government budgeting processes, and reducing this unfunded liability was a major goal for government during 2004-2006 public sector bargaining. This reality, along with the historical context, that NAPE and CUPE went on strike to avoid these provisions, and they were imposed on them anyway, is incredibly relevant to government’s unwillingness to go down that road in bargaining with other groups, including NLTA. It also foreshadows the likely results of job action predicated on this issue. The negotiating team also considered whether going to conciliation would assist in achieving a gain in sick leave. However, past precedent, including prior conciliation reports in NL and other jurisdictions, shows that a conciliation board would be very unlikely to recommend a significant departure from provisions that are standard across public sector agreements in the province, such as the rate of sick leave accrual for teachers hired since Sept 1, 2006. (Tentative Agreement – FAQ)

It should be noted that the previous efforts that have not proven to be successful in respect of acquiring positive gains for our membership on this matter does not deter my commitment to continue this fight. I am not a defeatist. Members’ lived experiences and needs undoubtedly shape my advocacy efforts – especially when and how they affect the collective.

To be completely honest, I’m not exactly sure how to answer this question as an individual. Currently, our standing Collective Agreement is a product of over 50 years of history and bargaining/negotiations since the passage of the Teachers’ Collective Bargaining Act in 1973. The intricacies and technical ramifications within the clauses of any Collective Agreement far extend past the standard vehicle for remuneration, leave clauses, workload, etc.

However, I will certainly point to some of the key issues that I see as imperative for our membership – keeping in mind that a Collective Agreement is for the benefit of the collective, and not the individual – so I surely don’t profess to have authority to proclaim the needs of such a wide cross section of people that make up our membership.

• Competitive salary scale including a clause that integrates a COLA provision
• Competitive long standing service bonus triggers, as a retention bonus
• Competitive leave allowances – with the addition of access to non-discretionary personal leave days; and a suitable remediation for the post Sept 2006 members
• Competitive SEB clause
• Competitive group insurance package – including robust health/dental/life/A&D/LTD etc with premiums cost shared with the employer by a minimum of 50%
• Competitive EAP provisions
• Competitive clauses that address workload, working conditions, guaranteed prep time, class size and composition/complexity, supervision during non-instructional time
• Competitive clauses on hiring, tenure, seniority, redundancy and recall, dismissal
• Competitive clauses on grievance and arbitration procedures; and ability to file a formal complaint outside of said grievance and arbitration procedures
• Guaranteed access to clean water, clean AIR, and mould free/asbestos free working environments
• Recognition as EDUCATION professionals – and NOT responsible to assume roles of security; narcs; detectives; body guards; social workers; medical professionals; et al…
• Employer commitment to consult with NLTA when changes are being considered and/or implemented
• Competitive Leave in Lieu with potential for a payout provision for work required to be completed outside of the 195 day school year.
• Competitive compensation for extra-curricular activities
• Increased allotment of administration days, report card days, PL days – that are timely and relevant

This is a taste of where I stand – it is not exhaustive, but it is a start.

I would first consult with the members in rural areas that are experiencing grave deficits in their staffing contingents. I never profess to have all of the answers, but I’m not shy at digging into challenging work – but authentic strategies must be centered on the needs and ideas of the affected people, and in this case you are asking about rural areas.

I believe that enhancements within our Collective Agreement with the ideas that I listed in my answer to Question number 2 would prove to entice new employees and to retain current employees.

Retention and recruitment is indeed wreaking havoc on our public services – and Education is very much a part of our essential public services. People want to be paid their worth that commensurates with their education and experience; people need to feel that their work/life satisfaction is fruitful; and people need to feel supported, respected, trusted, and valued for the work that they do.

Further, ensuring availability of adequate housing, access to necessary and wanted services, with the opportunity to travel on paid leave to travel to larger centers to fill gaps that smaller areas can not fulfil in respect of necessary services/goods.

First of all, I would offer nonjudgmental support for any teacher that is looking to leave the profession. I would surely offer a safe harbour to actively listen to the teacher. I would recommend that they consider reaching out to Programs and Services at the NLTA for assistance and fact gathering that would be specific to their own situation, and I would also recommend that they consider reaching out to EAP for guidance and/or assistance in making such a monumental decision. Mental and physical health, individual circumstances and/or priorities ultimately need to lead the charge in tandem with a critical lens being used to balance the teacher’s options.

I am not kidding when I say that I am struggling in our profession, but I actively balance this with the benefits that I have come to depend upon. As a teacher, I get to:

• Influence the leaders of tomorrow
• Influence the capacity and nourish the potential of our students – Newfoundland and Labrador’s most valuable resource
• Share my passion of learning as a career
• Access paid leave (eg. sick, family, bereavement)
• Access group insurance and pension
• Access post-retirement benefits
• Enjoy the protection of the provisions within our Collective Agreement; and
• Access the staff of the NLTA to advise and guide me through challenges that arise

In my own particular situation, my husband, in his line of work, does not have access to any paid leave, group insurance, or pension. He does not have the protection of a Collective Agreement, nor the access to staff to assist him when there is a dispute in his workplace. I don’t take our benefits for granted – because there are far too many people who simply do not have access to these luxuries. It’s understandable for members to want more – I get it. This is human nature, and an innate desire for betterment – but I would encourage members who are considering leaving the profession to balance out their priorities in relation to their own personal situation with an unbiased third party. Life experiences can really shape and alter our perspectives – so it is best to be in tune with your own individual situation when discerning your path.

I give my all to the students in my classroom – but I no longer volunteer my time for school based or department based committees, nor extra-curricular activities – this is a choice that helps me balance my own particular situation. I have chosen to serve our membership, and in turn the students of our province, by working behind the scenes in countless ways through my NLTA involvement. Our working conditions are our students’ learning conditions. This fuels my drive and sustains my spirit – I was built to overcome challenges, and I thrive on helping others.