Introduction

In a decision released August 25, 2026, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB”) provided important guidance on the interaction between central and local bargaining under Ontario’s School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014 (the “SBCBA”), particularly during first collective agreement negotiations.

In Ottawa Catholic School Board (OLRB Case No. 3382-25-U and 0082-26-M), Vice-Chair Brian Smeenk held that there is no separate regime for first collective agreements that would permit a union and a school board to bargain over matters that have already been designated as within the scope of central bargaining.

This new decision provides useful guidance for school boards on how to respond when a union seeks to make proposal in first collective agreement negotiations that may fall within the scope of central bargaining.

Background

The case arose after the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (“OSSTF” or the “Union”) became certified as the bargaining agent for a group of professional student services personnel employed by the Ottawa Catholic School Board (the “School Board”). The parties began bargaining for a first collective agreement in November 2025.

One of OSSTF’s proposals was to eliminate the School Board’s Category II pay band, which applied to certain employees such as social workers, speech-language pathologists, and addiction counsellors, among other professionals.  The pay band resulted in different wage rates for some employees based on when they were hired. The Union characterized the distinction as arbitrary and sought to eliminate the lower pay tier through local bargaining, on the basis that the pay structure had been unilaterally established by the School Board prior to the Union’s certification.

The School Board took the position that it could not negotiate over the Union’s proposal because salaries, wages and direct compensation were matters within the scope of central bargaining under the SBCBA and the applicable 2022 Central Scope Agreement, which set out the scope of central bargaining. The Union disagreed and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that, by refusing to consider the proposal, the School Board was bargaining in bad faith contrary to section 17 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“LRA”).

The School Board subsequently referred the dispute to the central parties (the Council of Employers’ Associations, formerly the Council of Trustees’ Associations (the “CEA”) and OSSTF) and the Crown pursuant to section 28(3) of the SBCBA. When the central parties could not resolve the issue, the CEA brought an application under section 28(5) of the SBCBA, asking the OLRB to determine whether the proposal fell within the scope of central bargaining.

The Union disagreed with the application of section 28 to the parties’ dispute and asserted that it was up to the party making the proposal to refer the dispute to the central parties, that party being the Union rather than the CEA. It also argued that section 33 of the SBCBA, entitled “Bargaining for a first collective agreement”, created a distinct regime because it specifically addresses first collective agreements. In the Union’s view, the parties were required to negotiate the “local terms” of a first collective agreement locally, and nothing in section 33 expressly prohibited the negotiation of wages in that context. In contrast, the CEA, the Crown and the School Board took the position that the Union’s position regarding the pay bands clearly related to the matter of “Salary”, which included “Salary, Wages and Direct Compensation, salary and wage adjustment”, under the 2022 Central Scope Agreement. As a result, the Union’s proposal on salary bands was not available for local bargaining.

The Decision

The OLRB granted the CEA’s section 28 application and dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint.

Vice-Chair Smeenk first determined that the CEA’s section 28 application was properly before it. Section 28(3) of the SBCBA requires disputes between local parties concerning whether a matter falls within the scope of local bargaining to be referred to the central parties and the Crown. Importantly, the provision does not limit the ability to pursue that process to the party that advanced the proposal. As such, the Union could not prevent the School Board from referring the dispute.

The OLRB then rejected the proposition that section 33 creates an alternative regime for first collective agreements. Rather, it held that both section 33 and 28 applied and needed to  be read together. Section 33 provides that the local terms of a first collective agreement are negotiated locally, while the agreement is deemed to include the applicable central terms. Section 28, in turn, provides the mechanism for determining whether a particular subject matter falls within central or local bargaining.

As part of its analysis, the OLRB also reviewed the legislative history of the SBCBA’s provisions. When originally enacted in 2014, section 33 expressly contemplated that first collective agreements would be negotiated through “local bargaining alone”. However, the legislation subsequently changed. The current version incorporates central terms into first collective agreements and, in the OLRB’s view, reflects an intention that the province-wide, two-tiered bargaining regime apply immediately to newly organized units. On this basis, the OLRB concluded that there cannot be local bargaining over central items, even in the context of first collective agreement negotiations.

The absence of an existing collective agreement for the specific bargaining unit did not change the result. The OLRB emphasized that, although no local collective agreement was yet in effect, there was already a binding 2022 Central Scope Agreement governing the scope of central bargaining, as well as the centrally-negotiated terms and an arbitration award that provided for annual wage increases.

The OLRB did not need to undertake an extensive interpretation of the 2022 Central Scope Agreement because OSSTF itself conceded that, if section 28 applied, “flattening the wage grid” was a central issue. The OLRB therefore concluded that the pay-band elimination proposal fell within the scope of central bargaining.

Accordingly, the  School Board was correct in refusing to negotiate the proposal locally, and the OLRB consequently dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint. The OLRB directed the Union to withdraw its proposal from local bargaining and directed the local parties to resume their first collective agreement negotiations without further attempts by the Union to negotiate over wages.

Takeaways for School Boards

This decision provides several practical takeaways for school boards who negotiate under the SBCBA or another provincial two-tiered bargaining model. Most notably, negotiations for a first collective agreement do not start with a blank slate. Newly certified bargaining units remain subject to the central/local bargaining framework under the SBCBA, and section 33 does not permit local parties to negotiate over matters that have already been determined to be within the scope of central bargaining. The decision also provides reassurance that a school board’s good-faith position regarding the appropriate scope of bargaining should not constitute bargaining in bad faith.

Ultimately, the decision reinforces the importance for school boards entering into local bargaining (whether for a first or a renewal collective agreement) of understanding the scope of central bargaining. If there is a question as to whether a proposal relates to the scope of central bargaining, the school board should consult with their school boards’ association as a first step.

For questions about this decision or the scope of bargaining under the SBCBA, please contact John-Paul Alexandrowicz or Megan Beal, who represented the CEA in this case.