Collective Agreement Administration

Job Security in the Newspaper Industry

by
          designer491/Shutterstock

“No layoffs for newspaper workers.”

No, this is not an embellished headline from a tabloid. This comes from the Canadian Labour Reporter: “Winnipeg Free Press workers ratify new agreements with no layoff clause.”

Why is this so shocking to the labour relations world? It’s because no layoff clauses are very rare in any collective agreement. No employer wants to be obligated to keep employees when they have no work available. Even more shocking is the fact that this no layoff clause is in the traditional newspaper industry, which has been in significant decline (with large layoffs) since the invention of the Internet.

Unifor, the union that negotiated the no layoff clause, is claiming it as a huge win for their members. (click here to read Unifor’s news release)

Is it a true win for the union and its members? In reality, it is only a two-year deal, so the employees do get job security but only for two years, what happens after that? Who knows? In addition, in this new collective agreement there was no wage increases for the employees but the union was able to stabilize the workers’ pension and that is a big win.

This Unifor deal may not be the most lucrative collective agreement ever. However, it is a very interesting event that may have an impact on other collective bargaining negotiations in other industries. Keep posted.

Discussion Questions

Research other collective agreements to see if they have a “no layoff” clause.  Are they in the public sector or the private sector?

In future negotiations, do you see Unifor being successful in adding a “no layoff” clause with other employers in other industries?  Why or why not? Defend your argument.

Meeting Matters

by

In any effective labour-management strategy, the need for powerful communication between the parties is paramount. Organizations use the tool of the labour-management committee process and structure in order to achieve this need.

Labour-management committee meetings are typically ascribed in a collective agreement. The process as outlined in the language of the collective agreement may include:

  • the timing of meetings
  • where the meetings will take place
  • how many representatives are designated for both employer and union side

The purpose of the labour-management committee process is usually defined so as to promote and pursue harmonious relations between the parties through these meetings in order to ensure effective communication.

As we know through our industrial relations studies, the collective agreement is the employment contract between two parties – the employer and the union representing a particular group of employees. Both parties must abide by the specific language in the collective agreement. Otherwise, the contract (in the form of the collective agreement) has been violated.

Labour-management committee meetings are supposed to enable the union and the employer to check in with each other on common issues, identify common concerns and, hopefully, work through to solutions in a constructive way from a problem-solving perspective.

In theory, all of this should be implemented smoothly given the commitment by both parties to abide by the collective agreement. Reality, however, offers a different perspective for our consideration.

In an article published by the Queen’s University Center for Industrial Relations, Gary Furlong explores the mutual dynamics of some of the power struggles and communication issues that are typical in the real-world experience of labour-management processes.

Click here to read the article

As noted in this article, while it assesses the challenges from both an employer and union perspective, the focus is on how the employer’s actions impact the labour relationship.

From the union side the perspective is, not surprisingly, a bit different.

A recently published article by rankandfile.ca offers a view of the labour-management process from the union side. The article itself is clear through its title ‘How to Act Like a Union on a Labour Management Committee’.

Click here to read the article

This article provides us with an excellent perspective on how the union views itself as the collective entity through the consistent application of solidarity, always. It provides us with the understanding that the labour-management committee process is to be used as an extension of the collective bargaining process.

Also, it identifies that even the seating arrangements during a labour-management meeting must honour the single voice and the identity of the union as one collective source. To try to separate union members during a meeting through seating arrangements is not an acceptable practice as it is perceived as unequal treatment. The only equal parties in a labour management meeting are the entity of the employer and the entity of the union – not individuals who may speak from multiple, self-reflective perspectives.

Does this approach ascribed to the union fly in the face of harmonious relations between the parties? Not necessarily.

Understanding the other side is the first step in the development of effective relationships. Implementing that understanding remains the challenge for us all.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How can the Human Resources role facilitate effective labour-management communication?
  2. Do you agree with the perception that seating arrangements matter in a meeting setting? Why or why not?
  3. As the employer representative in a labour-management committee meeting, how will you respond to the collective approach described in the union-side article?
  4. Why is the need to ensure that committee meetings are extensions of the collective bargaining process important to the union? How can this approach be used effectively by the employer?

Words, words, words….

by

 

Dictionary page - definition of language
Source: Benoit Daoust/Shutterstock

Picture a common scene taking place in a unionized workplace in Canada.  In this scene, we see the organization’s HR Practitioner trying to figure out what, exactly, certain phrases within a Collective Agreement mean.  When the HR Practitioner asks the union representative for clarification of the item, she receives one perspective.  When she asks a supervisor for clarification on the same item, she receives a completely different response.

Then, we see the HR Practitioner with a bit of a headache trying to make sense of it all as the following questions appear in front of her:

  • How can one simple sentence mean two totally different things?
  • Why don’t Collective Agreements use clear and unequivocal language that makes sense to everyone who is bound by its meaning?
  • Who writes these agreements anyway?

This is the good, the bad, and the ugly reality of Collective Agreement language and administration.  Living with the management of a Collective Agreement means that the language can and will be interpreted in two (or more) completely different ways, depending on the situational point of view.

We see this in a recent decision by a Federal tribunal.  In this case, the tribunal upheld a grievance for an employee in one fact-based situation but dismissed a similar grievance for a second employee in a different fact-based situation.  Both employees had filed grievances regarding the same language provisions within their respective Collective Agreement.  Both employees were penalized for coming in late to work due to circumstances, allegedly, outside of their control.

Click here to Read the Article.

A few things come to mind as a result of this case.

First, from the Tribunal’s perspective, the way language was interpreted and applied brought the element of reasonableness into consideration, for both the employer and the employee in each circumstance.

Second, the ability of the employee to control their individual environments and make their own decisions was also a significant consideration in each case.

Most importantly, we must consider the fact that the language in most Collective Agreements is written through a process of negotiation, where every word comes at a price.  The words themselves may be used as a bargaining chip to achieve something else during the collective bargaining process.  All too often, the language that gets written into a Collective Agreement is produced in the middle of the night by union and employer representatives who are both exhausted and focused on reaching a settlement.  Wordsmithing to get certain phrases just right is not something that the parties want to do when the deal is close to being done.

As a result, the implementation  and management of the Collective Agreement takes on interesting twists as it gets brought to life by all of the parties involved.

When the curtain falls on this workplace drama, we see the HR practitioner taking the time to consider multiple elements as she proceeds with the task of interpreting the Collective Agreement, in a fair and reasonable manner.

End scene.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Which employee grievance do you agree with the most? Why?
  2. As an HR practitioner, what will you do to ensure a consistent approach to the application of language in a Collective Agreement that is fair to everyone?
  3. How would you re-write the Collective Agreement language used in the article so that it would have less chance for misinterpretation from an employer perspective?