Union

What’s in a Name?

by

Disputes often arise from good intentions gone wrong.

Source: Paul Lemon/Shutterstock
Source: Paul Lemon/Shutterstock

In a recent case, the Prairie North Health Region (PNHR) tried to amend its practice for employees wearing name tags.   The change was to have the full name (first and last), job title, and picture of the employee on an identity badge, rather than just the employee’s first name.  As noted in the article, the purpose of implementing this change came as a result of the employer wanting to promote a patient first philosophy and to equalize the balance of power between patient and health care provider.

Click Here to Read the Article.

The union representing the workers, CUPE Local 5111, disagreed and filed a grievance in order to stop this change in practice.  The grievance, as noted in the article was based on several grounds, with the allegation of violation of employee privacy as the primary concern. The matter was not resolved internally.  As a result, the dispute went to arbitration for a final resolution imposed by a three-party panel of arbitrators.

The arbitrators’ decision fell on the side of the union.  The employer had to rescind the new policy and had to implement new cards showing only employee first names, job titles along with a photo.

Click Here to Read the Case.

As you will note, this case is extensive.  It shows the amount of critical detail, witnesses, testimony, legislative impact, evidence of past practice and presentation of other precedent setting cases required in order for this matter to be resolved through a board of arbitration.  It was definitely a costly exercise for everyone involved.

Clearly, our names and our right to protect our own personal privacy has value.

One wonders, however, how much the value of good intentions truly cost all of the parties in this case.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Who would benefit from employees wearing name tags with first and last name?
  2. Why do employees, in this case, have a ‘greater’ right to privacy than patients?
  3. What elements of this case would prevent it from being resolved within the applicable grievance resolution process?
  4. Why, do you think, a case like this would proceed to arbitration?
  5. What lessons would you take from your reading of this case?

 

Do We Need Unions in Order to Manage Effectively?

by

In our study of Industrial Relations, it is natural that we look at the management perspective within a unionized context.  The typical perspective in this setting is that the union represents the voice of the workers in the necessary fight for equality, transparency, and the breaking down of traditional hierarchical barriers.  Management, on the other hand, is represented as the ‘master’ in the ‘master-servant’ relationship.  In this type of traditional hierarchical paradigm, management is seen as unbending, unwilling to listen, and unable to connect with employees.

Source: Stankovic/Shutterstock
Source: Stankovic/Shutterstock

There is no doubt that these types of relationships continue in varying degrees in all of our Canadian workplaces.   There is, however, a significant shift in executive leadership and management style that is now starting to change this polarized perspective.

Peter Aceto is the CEO for Tangerine Banking Services in Canada.  In a recent interview, Mr. Aceto describes his non-traditional approach to effective leadership.

Click here to read the artcile.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Aceto’s approach to working with employees and breaking down hierarchical barriers seems more like that of a traditional union leader than that of the traditional CEO.  It presents a fundamental opportunity for change.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Identify two management practices that the CEO of Tangerine has implemented that would typically be fought for by a union.
  2. What benefits would a union bring to this type of a workplace environment?
  3. What are the risks to this type of management style in a non-unionized workplace?
  4. How does this non-traditional leadership style appeal to you?

Promises Made, Promises Broken

by

Simply put, the collective agreement is an employment contract.  As you will remember from your employment law studies, any employment contract that is formed between two parties, must have an offer, acceptance, and consideration in order for that contract to be enforceable.   In a unionized environment, each time the collective agreement is renewed through the legitimate process of collective bargaining, these principles of offer, acceptance, and consideration remain in play.  Once the parties have agreed to the terms of renewal, they have a contract between them.  Signed, sealed, and delivered.

Source: ALEXSTAND/Shutterstock
Source: ALEXSTAND/Shutterstock

The collective agreement is not a one sided ‘union’ contract that the employer can ignore.  It is a contract between two parties.  Nothing will harden and sour the relationship between an employer and a union more than the perception that the employer is ignoring the terms of a negotiated, settled, and accepted collective agreement.

Let’s look at this from a personal perspective.  If I agree to sell my house to a buyer, we negotiate the sale of the house and everything that is agreed and committed through a signed contract.  If that contract includes the agreement on my part to leave all of the window dressings in place, then I leave them in place!   I don’t take them with me or destroy them – That is not what I agreed to do.  If I do take them with me, I should expect a very unfavourable reaction from the other party because I have deliberately broken the contract between us. Actions are similar with collective agreement administration.  If the employer agrees to something during the life of the agreed upon contract, and then breaks that agreement, the union is going to react in a negative way.  This result should not be a surprise to anybody with the responsibility for administering a collective agreement.

Yet, it happens, as is discussed in the article, below.

Click here to read the article. 

It is easy to be an armchair critic and wonder why the employer, in this case, would have agreed to a commitment of no layoffs during the life of a collective agreement if they knew they could not afford it. We must remember that any contract negotiation is never straightforward and we have to live with the results.

What are the Human Resources lessons to take from all of this?  Effective HR planning and preparation for realistic implementation of a collective agreement is critical!  And, do not make promises you can not keep.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What types of terms could have been negotiated into this collective agreement?
  2. What could the employer have done differently in order to lessen the impact on unionized employees?
  3. Identify three specific pieces of information that an HR practitioner could have included as part of collective bargaining preparation?
  4. What steps would you advise the union to follow in this case?

 

Swan Song for the Public

by

By the time this blog is posted, the Canadian federal election will be a thing of the past.  One of the more interesting moments that happened during the election campaign was the suspension of a Federal employee, Tony Turner, for writing a song about Prime Minister Steven Harper.

Mr. Turner provides his perspective on what happened in an interview with MetroNews.

As with many things that did not go as planned during the recent election campaign, the suspension of Mr. Turner received international media and extensive social media coverage.

The suspension brings forward very interesting questions about the employment boundaries that may or may not exist for employees in the public service.  They are employees of the federal government, which is led by the Prime Minister of Canada.  There is generally an accepted understanding that employees should not cause harm to or malign the reputation of their employer in the public domain.  In the case of Mr. Turner, does this mean that he should not have made his personal political opinions public? On the other hand, were his actions significant enough to merit a suspension from employment?

It is not surprising that the union representing Mr. Turner filed a grievance in this case.   As for the outcome, Mr. Turner retired from his work with the public service sector, which means that there will be no formal resolution to this grievance.

While we all know what the outcome to the federal election was, we will never know what the outcome for Mr. Turner through his union, would have been.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Should public sector employees be subject to disciplinary action for voicing or engaging in personal political activities?
  2. What advice would you, as the HR Practitioner for the Prime Minister’s office, give to the Prime Minister in this case?
  3. From the employer’s perspective, what specific factors merited disciplinary action against Mr. Turner?
  4. Do you think employees in the public service have a ‘higher’ duty of responsibility to their employer? Why or why not?

Arbitrators in Action

by

Termination is a Risky Business.

There was a great deal of social media coverage surrounding the firing of a Hydro One employee who contributed to the sexist heckling of a news reporter, in the spring of 2015.  Many commentaries at the time included speculation as to whether or not the termination of this employee would stand.

Since the employee was represented by a union, the termination was grieved and it went to an arbitration hearing.  In this case, the arbitrator made the decision to re-instate the former employee back into employment with Hydro One.

It is interesting to note the slightly different perspectives that each media venue provides; for example,  watch the following coverage provided by Global News.

Click here to read the article.

The coverage includes the perspective of a union spokesperson providing their insight as to what the arbitrator took into consideration when making the determination for reinstatement.   It seems that the former employee’s genuine remorse and public apologies for his conduct were factors that had some influence on the resolution to this situation.  Having said that, we are not given information as to what the employer presented at this hearing, nor are we given information as to all of the facts that the arbitrator had to consider.

In a case such as this, the arbitrator’s decision is final.

What remains to be seen is how this decision will influence other cases in the future regarding the termination of an employee due to their own ‘off-duty’ conduct.

Discussion questions:

  1. Do you think employers in the future will terminate employees for similar off-duty conduct if there is a risk of reinstatement?
  2. Is the risk worth it in order to ‘send a message’ about acceptable social conduct?
  3. Do you agree with the arbitrator’s decision in this situation? Why? Why not?
  4. From a Human Resources perspective, what types of policies need to be defined clearly in the workplace about employee conduct?
  5. Identify two or three different media perspectives through internet links for this case. What are the differences in the messages from each media outlet?