A dispute has emerged between the Innovative Teachers Union and the Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT) over the former’s exclusion from negotiations for the 2026 Collective Bargaining Agreement covering teaching staff of the Ghana Education Service.

Innovative Teachers, through its lawyers, has issued a demand notice to the Attorney General and other stakeholders, threatening legal action if it is not allowed to participate in the ongoing negotiations.

In a letter dated October 5, 2026, the union argued that although GNAT holds the collective bargaining certificate, it is required under the Labour Regulations, 2007 (L.I. 1833), to consult or, where appropriate, invite other unions representing the same class of workers to participate in negotiations.

The union accused GNAT of failing to consult it during the 2020, 2024 and 2026 collective bargaining processes.

Innovative Teachers further alleged that GNAT consulted the National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT) and the Pre-Tertiary Teachers Association of Ghana (PRETAG) ahead of the 2026 negotiations but did not extend the same opportunity to it.

It therefore wants the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission (FWSC) to require GNAT to provide evidence that Innovative Teachers was consulted before the 2026 negotiations continue.

The union is also demanding either its inclusion in the negotiations or the withdrawal of NAGRAT and PRETAG from the negotiating table, leaving GNAT to negotiate alone with the FWSC.

It warned that failure to resolve the matter could result in an application to the court to suspend the implementation of the 2026 Collective Bargaining Agreement.

However, GNAT has rejected the claim that Innovative Teachers has a legal right to participate in its negotiating committee.

In its response to the National Labour Commission, GNAT argued that being a registered trade union and wanting to participate in negotiations does not automatically confer a legal right to do so.

According to GNAT, it is the holder of the collective bargaining certificate for teaching staff of the Ghana Education Service, while Innovative Teachers does not hold such a certificate.

It relied on provisions of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), particularly Sections 99, 101 and 103, to argue that negotiating authority is vested in the trade union that holds the collective bargaining certificate.

GNAT also distinguished between consultation and participation under Regulation 10(1) of L.I. 1833.

It acknowledged that the regulation imposes a duty on the certificate holder to consult other unions representing the same class of workers but argued that the decision to invite another union to participate in negotiations is discretionary.

GNAT said the regulation uses the phrase “where appropriate” in relation to participation, unlike the mandatory language used for consultation.

It maintained that it had considered whether Innovative Teachers should be invited to the negotiations and determined that such participation was not appropriate.

The association also rejected the argument that its previous inclusion of other unions, including NAGRAT, created a continuing legal obligation to include all other unions in subsequent negotiations.

It described such previous participation as an exercise of discretion rather than an admission of a legal requirement.

GNAT further argued that compelling it to include every union representing teachers could make collective bargaining unworkable, given the possibility of multiple unions representing the same class of workers.

It said the collective bargaining certificate system was designed to ensure that one recognised union negotiates on behalf of the entire class of workers.

The association also disputed the characterization of its position as an unfair labour practice, arguing that GNAT is a trade union and not an employer.

According to GNAT, the conditions of employment of teachers are determined through negotiations involving the Ghana Education Service and the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission, and its decision on the composition of its negotiating committee is an internal governance matter.

It therefore urged the National Labour Commission to reject Innovative Teachers’ request to compel its inclusion in the negotiations.

Innovative Teachers, however, maintains that GNAT's exercise of its discretion must comply with the constitutional requirement to act fairly and without discrimination.

It has consequently called on the relevant authorities to intervene before the 2026 Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations proceed further.