Despite the outcry raised by its challenge to the Law on Secularism up to the Supreme Court, the Autonomous Federation of Education (FAE) persists and signs. This approach to “defending the rights of members” is entirely justified and no consultation was required in the circumstances, affirms its president, Mélanie Hubert.
“We are aware that there is an understanding […] which is difficult. What we are doing is a process of defending our members who were harmed by the law,” says M.me Hubert, who estimates their number at “several hundred”, notably veiled women.
At the end of April, the FAE announced that it was continuing its fight to invalidate the State Secularism Act before the Supreme Court, by asking to regulate the use of the derogation clause by provincial governments in order to avoid populist excesses.
Law 21 prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by state employees in positions of authority and the derogation clause was included as soon as it was adopted, which makes it immune from challenges in court.
Grumbling from teachers
This decision was, however, strongly criticized by several teachers who are opposed to their union dues being used to finance this legal action and are demanding a real consultation on this approach. Two petitions have circulated among the ranks of teachers.
After a month of controversy where she stayed away from the media space, the president of the FAE agreed to reverse this decision, at the request of the Newspaper.
Mme Hubert first recalls that this legal challenge is only the culmination of a process initiated in 2018, first in the Superior Court then before the Court of Appeal, in order to prevent local unions from multiplying grievances the room.
Less than $20 per union member
So far, this action has cost the union approximately $1.2 million, which plans to spend another “a few hundred thousand dollars” for future proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Mélanie Hubert admits that this is one of the “most expensive” legal procedures since the creation of the union federation, since the FAE had to resort to several external expertise.
While recognizing that this amount “may seem enormous,” Ms. Hubert nevertheless specifies that it represents “less than $20 per union member.”
“It has no common measure with what would have been needed in a strike fund to support 66,000 people,” she says, referring to the conflict last fall which deprived teachers of four weeks of salary.
No consultation required to move forward
The president of the FAE, Mélanie Hubert, also indicates that the legal steps surrounding Law 21 were made in compliance with the internal rules of the federation. “For legal recourse, it is the executive committee of the federation which can initiate proceedings and we do not have to consult our members […]. When it is our mandate to defend people’s interests, we go there,” she says.
While recognizing that this is a “polarizing” issue, Mélanie Hubert assures that this appeal is not part of “a partisan or federal-provincial logic”, since it is rather a question of defending the “ right to equality”.
In interview at Newspaper at the end of April, however, she affirmed that she wanted to limit the use of the derogation clause which “seems to be used more and more easily, for all kinds of reasons”.
Mme Hubert also denies “having remained idle” in recent weeks and claims to have heard the criticism.
“It’s true that we chose not to comment too much in public, because it raised a lot of reactions that we didn’t find constructive. We turned our efforts internally,” she says.
The FAE answered questions from members in local general assemblies, in person or via representatives of local unions, indicates Mme Hubert. Last week, in an open letter published by Le Journal, teachers however criticized the union federation for not listening to several members who oppose this appeal.
