Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Interchange Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Douglas, A.Industrial peacemaking. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downie, B.Collective bargaining and conflict resolution in education. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University Industrial Relations Centre, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • First Annual Report of the Education Relations Commission. Toronto: The Education Relations Commission, 1976.

  • Hameed, S. M. A.Canadian industrial relations: A book of readings. Toronto: Butterworth, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labour Canada.Collective Bargaining Review.

  • Labour Canada.Wage developments resulting from major collective bargaining settlements in Canada (Construction industry excluded).

  • Legislature of Ontario Debates, Official Report (Hansard), Daily Edition, Second Session, 31st Parliament, Thursday, May 11, 1978.

  • McLennan, K., & Moscow, M. “Multilateral bargaining in the public sector,”Industrial Relations Research Association, Proceedings of the Twenty-first annual winter meeting, December 1969.

  • 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 

  • 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).

  • 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).

  • 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).

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Queen's University, Canada

    Bryan M. Downie

Authors
  1. Bryan M. Downie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Downie, B.M. Public policy and finality in teacher/board bargaining: The ontario case. Interchange 9, 2–22 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01812105

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01812105

Keywords

Search

Navigation