Canada’s highest court has denied the University of British Columbia Faculty Association’s application, supported by CAUT, for leave to appeal a B.C. Court of Appeal decision that upheld an arbitrator’s ruling that he did not have jurisdiction over a grievance that senate policy on student evaluation of teaching violated the collective agreement.

“As is usual, the Supreme Court didn’t give a reason for its decision, nor is there any way to know the reason,” said CAUT executive director James Turk. “The action is not an endorsement of the B.C. Court of Appeal decision, but simply the Supreme Court saying it was not prepared to review it at this time.”

In April 2010, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld arbitrator David McPhillips’ 2008 ruling that the University Act granted authority over governance of academic matters to the senate, which the board of governors could not limit in any collective agreement it negotiated.

“In effect, this is saying there is no university, just two separate entities — the senate and the board,” Turk said. “It ignores the B.C. La­bour Relations Code that only recognizes two parties — the union and the employer, not parts of an employer.”

The UBC Faculty Association had argued the university is obligated to respect the terms of the agreement, and an arbitrator appointed under the labour code must have authority to consider whether an irreconcilable conflict exists between the terms of a collective agreement and a senate (or any other university) policy and if so, declare the terms of the policy inoperable for those covered by the collective agreement.

CAUT has encouraged academic staff associations to continue bargaining as usual on all matters that affect the terms and conditions of employment of their members.

“Should an employer refuse to bargain on any matter, we will encourage and support active mobilization of members as well as pursuing other options provided by law, including filing complaints of bad faith bargaining and refusal to bargain,” Turk said.