Ontario teachers’ refusal to run extracurricular activities only packs a political punch if it has “profound consequences on students,” claims the lawyer for two school boards seeking a cease-and-desist order to the boycott.

But the Education Act is designed to protect children from actions that let political foes “take it out on the kids,” said lawyer Michael Hines on Tuesday at a hearing into the legality of the after-school boycott before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

“If this work-to-rule succeeds it will have profound consequences on these children . . . and that doesn’t begin to address the impact on student safety and achievement . . . and the (engagement) that keeps many of them in school,” said Hines, who is representing the Trillium Lakelands District School Board in cottage country and the Upper Canada District School Board in eastern Ontario.

“There is a cost to this withdrawal of extracurriculars — it only works (as a political tool) if it causes hardship to the children,” Hines said.

The two school boards are asking Labour Relations Board Chair Bernard Fishbein to rule against bulletins the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) has sent out directing teachers not to fulfill an array of duties beyond the mandatory 300 minutes of teaching a day.

The memos are part of a province-wide directive from ETFO to withdraw from extra duties as a protest after the province used Bill 115 to impose contracts on teachers in the public English-language boards.

In these “takeover bulletins” issued Jan. 14 and 16, ETFO instructs teachers not to fill in for a principal when asked or attend a meeting other than a staff meeting, and to boycott professional development. They also are not to add more comments on upcoming report cards than they deem necessary in their own judgment.

The school boards also are asking Fishbein to rule against memos from local union officials warning teachers that “field trips, excursions, clubs, teams and ‘program enhancements such as electives’ are voluntary activities and members should not participate in them — full stop.”

The boards argue that these direct instructions to teachers of what not to do in their spare time constitutes an illegal strike under the Education Act, because it is a withdrawal of services that “interferes with the normal activities of a board or employees or the operation of a school.”

Some union memos suggest what teachers should say when asked by their employers to do these duties, including “I am focusing on my teaching this year” and “my workload is becoming so great I don’t have the time for voluntary activities this year.”

Hines argued that these memos remove freedom of choice from individual teachers and “must be rescinded” so that teachers once again are free to choose what extra duties they perform.

Fishbein will hear arguments from ETFO Wednesday, but some expect the hearing could last until the weekend or even next week.

ETFO also has asked Fishbein to rule that teachers’ contracts are invalid now that Bill 115 has been repealed — which would put them back in a legal strike position, a point on which Fishbein is expected to rule during the proceedings. Too, ETFO is expected to cite Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms in arguing their work-to-rule is a form of exercising their freedom of expression.