Collective agreement

Unlawful Strikes

by

As Canadians, we have a reputation for being a polite, respectful, and peaceful society.

Most of the time, we are known for upholding the rule of law. We function, generally, within reasonably acceptable parameters which include compliance with civil legislation. This includes the need to follow the statutory regime that upholds and frames the rights provided under specific labour relations legislation. Even if there are public displays of labour-related problems or conflicts, these are typically narrow in focus and usually driven by legitimate and acceptable labour practices.

It is unusual, therefore, to read and hear about the recent unlawful actions taken by Unifor against General Motors in Canada. Last year, General Motors announced that it would be closing its Oshawa plant, which will result in a massive loss of jobs for its unionized workforce. In response to this devastating announcement, Unifor has implemented a series of strike-related actions which are prohibited because an existing collective agreement is in place.

When two parties (the employer and the union) negotiate and agree to the terms of a collective agreement, this includes language within the agreement that states there will be no strike or lockout for the duration of the contract.  When there is a violation of the contract by one of the parties, the remedy is to file a grievance in order to restore the terms of the collective agreement.  If the parties are unable to do this on their own, the alleged violation goes to the applicable labour relations board for third-party resolution.

In the case of Unifor and General Motors, it appears that the union purposefully entered into a series of actions which, from an outsider’s perspective, ought reasonably to be known as violating the collective agreement.

Click here to read about the illegal strike action taking place at General Motors.

It is no surprise, then, to read that the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a ruling that declared the activities by Unifor as illegal and required the union (Unifor) to cease and desist in the promotion of illegal strike action.

Click here to read about the ruling issued by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

Click here to read the decision.

Why would Unifor proceed in the manner that it did? Unifor is a significant and sophisticated entity that represents thousands of workers across the country. The decision to enter into illegal strike action is not one that any union would enter into lightly or on a whim. The leadership at Unifor would know that the outcome of such action would result, as it did, in the decision of the OLRB to go against them.

One of the statements in the article refers to the union’s perception that the employer (General Motors) had violated the collective agreement in the first place by issuing the notice of plant closure. This gives the impression of tit-for-tat negotiating strategy that belies the seriousness of the actions taken on the part of the union.

Perhaps this case shows us that, even though we are law-abiding Canadians, sometimes we do need to take a stand in order to take action against decisions that affect the well-being of us all.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Why do you think Unifor made the decision to proceed with an unlawful strike?
  2. If you were representing the workers at General Motors, would you encourage unlawful strike action in this case? Explain your rationale.
  3. What impact does the decision from the OLRB have on continuing labour relations at General Motors?

Flipping Out Over ‘Contract Flipping’

by
Andrii Yalanskyi/Shutterstock

Contract flipping is not a widely publicized or known strategy in the employee and labour relations environment.

It is, nevertheless, a staffing scheme that exists and is used with more frequency than publicity.

Contract flipping is the practice of terminating existing unionized employees under one contract and then hiring the same employees for lesser wages and benefits under a new contract. This can be done if the business is sold from one entity to another and/or if there are no successor rights within the existing collective agreement.

While this is not an illegal or illegitimate action on the part of the employer, it is a practice that has little benefit for existing employees. When this happens, the economic impact on individuals can be devastating. On the employer side, however, contract flipping allows for significant savings and labour-related cost reductions.

In British Columbia, contract flipping has become an issue for resolution within the legislative framework. The current government in British Columbia has introduced legislation to limit the practice of contract flipping.

The first approach by the government of British Columbia was targeted in the public sector for seniors’ homes and health care facilities with the introduction of Bill 94.

Click here to read about the proposed changes to contract flipping through Bill 94.

The impact of the proposed legislation has moved into the private sector as well, as noted in a recent article about the impact of contract flipping on janitorial workers employed by BC Hydro.

Click here to read the article.

These articles provide us with the example of how the government becomes a key actor in changing the legislative environment. In this case, the actions of the provincial government in British Columbia come from the premise of social justice when dealing with the matter of contract flipping and its impact on its citizenry.

As of the timing of this post, the current status of Bill 94 is unclear. What is clear, in this case, is the need and the resulting actions of government intervention that are required in order to institute a change in public policy.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Is there a benefit to contract flipping for employees? Explain your rationale.
  2. What are the potential risks to employers who use contract flipping as part of their staffing protocols?
  3. As the HR professional for Alpine Building Maintenance, what advice will you give to the company’s decision makers about the timing of hiring former BC Hydro janitorial workers?
  4. In your opinion, why does the British Columbia government want to change the practice of contract flipping in the health-care (public services) sector?

Labour Disputes: Understanding Competing Pressures of Collective Bargaining

by
Asia Images/Shutterstock

Collective bargaining (CB) is the process of establishing or reviewing the conditions of employment between an employer and its unionized workforce.

On the face of it that seems to be a very simple concept. In fact, nothing is further from the truth. It is very difficult to understand and learn how to manage the collective bargaining process until you have actually experienced the process several times.

A good place to start when examining the CB process is with what happens when there is a conflict during negotiations and a new Collective Agreement (CA) between the parties cannot be reached. The resolution model for a contract dispute typically involves a union going on strike, or the employer locking out the union members. In both scenarios production stops and little or no unionized work gets done. This is exactly what happened in the GM Cami plant.

The last strike that occurred at the plant, located in Ingersoll, Ontario, was in 1992, and it lasted 5 weeks. It was what we in the labour-relations world would call a bread and butter strike. The union went on strike for better workplace relationships, wages, and benefits.

Click here for more details about the 1992 Cami GM Strike.

Let’s move forward 25 years to this current strike. Today’s Cami plant strike is not about wages, it is about saving jobs and improving job security. In 2015 the Cami Plant lost 400 jobs to Mexico.

The union is looking for GM to guarantee that the Cami Plant becomes the lead production facility of the Equinox, which would essentially mean a commitment to maintaining union jobs in Ontario. The union workers are committed to taking this stance as 99.8 percent of Cami plant workers voted to support the strike.

Click here to read more about the current Cami Strike.

This Cami plant strike is dealing with much bigger concerns than the typical bread and butter issues of employment conditions. It is really trying to address what is happening in today’s global economy, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and keeping manufacturing jobs in Canada. These are big issues that all HR professionals have to think about, whether they are working in a unionized or non-unionized industry.

 

Discussion Questions:

Discuss and critically support your position on the following statement. Does a union have a right to ask for an employer to provide job security?

Identify and discuss the concept of the triangle of pressure during collective bargaining negotiations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Renegotiate, Renew, Repeat

by
Carousel in running, shot by Tilt-Shift lens
Captain Yeo/Shutterstock

We live in a world that is full of cyclical patterns and connections. The world spins on its rotation around the sun. The seasons change and then they change again. The monthly calendar renews itself each year. Each day begins, ends, and then begins again with an opportunity to make the new day better than the day before.

It is within this construct of cyclical patterns that we observe the timing of bargaining the renewal of collective agreements. Unless the parties to a collective agreement are setting up an initial contract, the process of bargaining is based on a continuing cycle that re-negotiates the terms of that original agreement. Once the terms are agreed for the renewal, both parties know that they have a limited time to live with what was agreed to and that there is an opportunity to try to change items that are unsatisfactory, for either party, in the next round.

Within this type of a cyclical process, we must expect to see the patterns of negotiations repeating themselves and not be surprised by the steps that either party may take during the collective agreement renewal process.

A good example of this can be found in the negotiating patterns of the LCBO (the employer) and OPSEU (the union) in Ontario. The expiry date for the current collective agreement between these two parties is imminent. While they are in the process of negotiations, the union has set a strike deadline for the end of April 2017. LCBO workers are threatening to walk off the job if the terms of renewal are not agreed.

The very same process occurred in 2013, which was the last time these two parties met at the bargaining table.

Click here to read about the 2017 bargaining process between LCBO and OPSEU.

Click here to read about the 2013 bargaining process between LCBO and OPSEU.

It is interesting to read and compare the fact situations (and the perceptions) of each party between the last round of bargaining and this one. While some of the issues raised in the current round of bargaining may be a bit different, the end goal for both the union and the employer is the same. Both parties need to reach an agreement that they can live with until the bargaining cycle begins again.

Discussion Questions:

  1. After reading both articles, what similarities are in place on the employer (LCBO) side?
  2. What are the messages from the union about the employer in both articles? Are there any differences between 2013 and 2017?
  3. What issues are matters of concern in this latest round of bargaining?
  4. What leverage does each party have in order to reach a renewal to the collective agreement?

Failure to Communicate

by
kenary820/Shutterstock

For personal reasons, there are certain communities that are near and dear to this blogger’s heart. The Deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing constituencies served by the Canadian Hearing Society are in that category. So, reading about the on-going labour struggles between the union and management of this particular organization raises conflicting emotional and intellectual responses for someone who has sat on both sides of that particular table.

The Canadian Hearing Society provides services to thousands of people in Ontario who are Deaf, deafened or hard-of-hearing. It is a unique organization in that the service providers are also members of the communities that they serve. Both employees and management members use the services of the organization, such as sign-language interpreters, and are active in the promotion of consumer advocacy.

As of the writing of this blog, the employees of the Canadian Hearing Society (represented by CUPE) are on strike. They have been without a renewed collective agreement for four years and have been unable to negotiate a new agreement with their employer.

As a result of the on-going strike action the parties have now received a fair bit of media attention.

Click here to read a CBC interview about the strike.

Click here to read an update on the strike.

Among the many unfortunate things that happen in any strike is that the parties are unable to sit down together and communicate with each other. Instead, they start to ‘negotiate’ their perspectives through the media. As we see in both of these news articles, each side presents the rightness of their respective positions. Both the union and the management side have a valid rationale for explaining the position in which they find themselves. Unfortunately, this approach is not constructive. As we may experience in our own lives, the more we tell someone else about our story, the more attached we become to our own version of its events.

The same thing happens when parties start to tell their negotiations stories through the media. Instead of communicating with each other, the parties are now communicating at each other.

As a result, the parties become further and further entrenched with no resolution in sight. Until these particular parties are able to sit down and re-establish communications, it does not seem that this strike will have a successful resolution any time soon.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What are the ‘issues’ for each party causing the strike?
  2. What would your approach be to bring these parties together for resolution?
  3. How can the employer re-establish a positive public image with its community members and employees?