Mitch Cronin Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 this'll really help: IN THE MATTER OF THE Canada Labour Code and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Air Canada Pilots Associations, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Airline Division, Air Canada Component, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Transportation District 140, Air Canada Pilots Association, applicant unions, - and - Air Canada respondent. WHEREAS the Canada Industrial Relations Board has received complaints from the National Automobile, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Airline Division, Air Canada Component, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Transportation District 140 and the Air Canada Pilots Association pursuant to section 97 (1) of the Canada Labour Code (Part I – Industrial Relations) alleging that Air Canada has violated sections 94 (1) (a) and 94 (3) (a) of the Code; AND WHEREAS, the complainants have also requested that the Board issue an interim order pursuant to section 19.1 of the Code prohibiting the respondent employer from polling the unionized employees on the issue of pension restructuring without the agreement or consent of the bargaining agents until the application is heard on the merits; AND WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on February 28, 2004 where the parties had the opportunity to submit their argument on the application for an interim order; AND WHEREAS, the Board following consideration of the submissions of the parties concerned, decided to grant the application and issue an interim order; NOW, THEREFORE, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, hereby orders pursuant to section 19.1 of the Code, 1.that the respondent, Air Canada, cease the on-line polling of unionized employees and refrain from conducting any other such poll or survey of unionized employees, until the main application in this matter is heard on its merits and decided; 2.that the respondent destroy all information gathered, with respect to the unionized employees, by way of the poll and advise all unionized employees accordingly; 3.that the respondent cease and desist communicating directly with the unionized employees on the issue of pension restructuring without the agreement of consent of the bargaining agents. ISSUED at Ottawa, this 1st day of March 2004, by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Douglas G. Ruck, Q.C. Vice-Chairperson What a sad day.... what kind of law says an employer can't freakin' talk to it's employees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Mitch... In this case, it isn't about talking to the employees. If they want to talk to the employees, what about the Employee Climate Survey that was never rolled down due to the fact that it didn't follow the party line. I agree with this ruling because if the Company wants to negotiate, then do so. Stop sneaking around the edges trying to undermine the situation. Having said that, I despise the IAM as much as you do. However, I do feel strongly that union concepts and rules should be followed. Otherwise we end up with a situation that our esteemed Liberal Government has created in our country. In otherwords, haves, have nots, and a system with no accountability. So lets enforce the rules, make sure that ALL parties play by them, and if you don't like your representation, I fully agree with your right to organise and replace them. But we must stop the BA$!ARDS from running roughshod over the workers to justify their multimillion dollar bonuses. PLAY FAIR!!!!! Rgds... Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Online employee survey withdrawn. Following a ruling this weekend by the CIRB, we have withdrawn the online survey respecting employees' individual preferences on the desirability of choosing the form of pension plan from Aeronet and achorizons.ca. Air Canada will review the written ruling from the CIRB once it is received to determine next steps. The poll's intent was to give employees a voice on an issue of extreme importance to them and the overall restructuring of the corporation. More details on this issue will be provided as developments warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky High Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Maybe the unions have their own agenda and don't want the company to know exactly how the members really feel. Just curious, but have any of the unions polled their members to find out what they think about their options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I did have my doubts this would be the ruling but I was proven wrong. The question needs to be asked: does this ruling also apply to Trinity Time as well as Air Canada the corporation? (I'm assuming the two are still separate entities.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Neo; The law wouldn't apply to TTI because under the Code, TTI is not a recognized player. Therefore, the question does not need to be asked. If AC and TTI are still separate entities, by what authority and with what legal standing would TTI conduct a "survey" of the employees? Potentiality as an investor grants no formal or informal status under the Code. IOW, no end run. The legal representatives of employees must be dealt with straight on as per the Code. While threats to walk away can change (and have in the past changed) dynamics, such threats cannot change the Code. Like the pension issue under OSFI, negotiating ("surveying" and "openness" are just the trojan horses used to end-run the process of collective bargaining) must be done under the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wingjockey Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Mitch please note where it says an 'interim order'. Both sides still have to argue their positions. IMHO,it ain't over yet .. and why can't someone request (demand) a union meeting or info session on this matter? Just wondering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Might be an interesting charter of rights argument. Corporations don't have the right to unfettered speech, but individual employees do, including non-union employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Dagger; Are you saying that corporations should have the very same 'freedom-of-speech' rights as individuals under the Charter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 No, I'm not. I'm saying some employees may like being heard on the issue and may wish to challenge attempts to silence them. The ruling, after all, applies to non-union employees as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Understand, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 This whole senario is more than a little Orwellian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Hi Don, thanks for the explanation. It was my understanding as well that TTI wasn't a "player" under the Code. I guess that's why I asked if the order would apply to them. Would they be permitted to conduct a survey as an interested third party, for instance? As far as I know, you don't require authority or a legal standing to ask people for their opinion, in general. Just a willingness on their part to give it. As the poster below observed, this is an interim order given prior to the parties to the order actually making representation. Perhaps we'll know the answers to my question and others soon enough. Best, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Hi Neo; I keep thinking that the chilly weather will produce a good crop for you this year...hope so. Planning on a tour when tasting time comes around! Re an interested third party conducting a survey, I claim no expertise but only a sliver of experience with the Code, but my sense is that even that would be questionable, but its definitely mischievous, (why else would TTI be doing a "survey"). Although one might argue that sidestepping the employees' legal representatives and surveying them might be an innocent enough endeavour, such a view is too credulous to be taken seriously. No company does such things lightly or without specific intent. As I have posted, I wish there were no need for unions and, like Rodney King said, that we could all just get along, but history has amply demonstrated that fairness almost always needs a little encouragement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 What's totally Orwellian (more than just a little) is the notion that the results be "destroyed". Sort of like telling people "you didn't see what you really see so erase that from your memory". Totally bizarre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Hi Don... I believe I know what your feelings on this issue are, and I have no wish to cross any lines or push any wrong buttons... but I'd like to understand... Your last statement: " history has amply demonstrated that fairness almost always needs a little encouragement." makes me think of the pendulum, which I believe just as often swings in the other direction after it's been encouraged. Sometimes the "fairness" pendulum is tethered just above the ground and it's period is very short in any direction... other times, or issues, the tether is on the moon and it's eons before the swing is reversed. Understand, please, that I'm not well versed in matters that unions and employers do their legaleze speak with... I approach most things I don't understand from a rather simplistic point of view, attempting to find sense in it's simplest form... perhaps for my simple mind? Hypothetically... if the majority of employees at Company X wanted to wear the company logo on their belly.... and the company wanted them to as well, but didn't know if the majority felt that way, would it be fair that the Company X Employees Union prevented the company from polling the employees on that issue, just because their contract said the logo was to be worn on their backs instead? If so, fair to whom? Where does one draw the line regarding what the employer can ask it's employees? Is it simply forbidden if it's a contractual issue? Am I undermining the efforts of a union if I speak directly with my employer? Isn't the union's most basic function to protect employees rights where they're being ignored? I feel as though the court has just laid down a line that says "to protect the employees rights we're going to allow the unions to silence them". I may be something of an odd duck, but I object to being silenced by anyone. And I object to any process that appears to me to be preventing communication. I cannot see how doing so advances the cause of "fairness"? I'm not saying I want our unions to lay quiet while our employer snows us all, and I'm not saying I want to accept what many have said they don't want to accept... But I am completely unable to understand why my employer isn't allowed to ask me something like: Do you like pork, beef or want more information? The question, especially as it seems the answer may be so important to the survival of the company, seems completely valid. Even in the face of signed contracts. Imagine that the results of that "survey" showed that the majority preferred beef... So what next? The company could then approach the unions with that knowledge and say, "we have reason to believe the majority of your members prefer beef and we'd like it if you'd put it to them for a vote." If the union wanted to, they could still say no. Though I don't know why they would... They could also, if they wanted, choose to do their best to inform their members before holding such a vote. Or they could simply do their best to inform their members why they would refuse to have a vote... How is collecting information on the wants of employees in any way harmful to those employees? If the worry is that the employees will answer the "poll" without enough information, so what? That's just preliminary data that might show that more information ought to be forthcoming... and as we all know "negotiations" will always have to be conducted with the unions. How did collecting information get confused with negotiating? Who has the flippin' ball here? It's obviously not the company, even if they were allowed to continue with their poll. Completely befuddled..... Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Hi Don... I believe I know what your feelings on this issue are, and I have no wish to cross any lines or push any wrong buttons... but I'd like to understand... Your last statement: " history has amply demonstrated that fairness almost always needs a little encouragement." makes me think of the pendulum, which I believe just as often swings in the other direction after it's been encouraged. Sometimes the "fairness" pendulum is tethered just above the ground and it's period is very short in any direction... other times, or issues, the tether is on the moon and it's eons before the swing is reversed. Understand, please, that I'm not well versed in matters that unions and employers do their legaleze speak with... I approach most things I don't understand from a rather simplistic point of view, attempting to find sense in it's simplest form... perhaps for my simple mind? Hypothetically... if the majority of employees at Company X wanted to wear the company logo on their belly.... and the company wanted them to as well, but didn't know if the majority felt that way, would it be fair that the Company X Employees Union prevented the company from polling the employees on that issue, just because their contract said the logo was to be worn on their backs instead? If so, fair to whom? Where does one draw the line regarding what the employer can ask it's employees? Is it simply forbidden if it's a contractual issue? Am I undermining the efforts of a union if I speak directly with my employer? Isn't the union's most basic function to protect employees rights where they're being ignored? I feel as though the court has just laid down a line that says "to protect the employees rights we're going to allow the unions to silence them". I may be something of an odd duck, but I object to being silenced by anyone. And I object to any process that appears to me to be preventing communication. I cannot see how doing so advances the cause of "fairness"? I'm not saying I want our unions to lay quiet while our employer snows us all, and I'm not saying I want to accept what many have said they don't want to accept... But I am completely unable to understand why my employer isn't allowed to ask me something like: Do you like pork, beef or want more information? The question, especially as it seems the answer may be so important to the survival of the company, seems completely valid. Even in the face of signed contracts. Imagine that the results of that "survey" showed that the majority preferred beef... So what next? The company could then approach the unions with that knowledge and say, "we have reason to believe the majority of your members prefer beef and we'd like it if you'd put it to them for a vote." If the union wanted to, they could still say no. Though I don't know why they would... They could also, if they wanted, choose to do their best to inform their members before holding such a vote. Or they could simply do their best to inform their members why they would refuse to have a vote... How is collecting information on the wants of employees in any way harmful to those employees? If the worry is that the employees will answer the "poll" without enough information, so what? That's just preliminary data that might show that more information ought to be forthcoming... and as we all know "negotiations" will always have to be conducted with the unions. How did collecting information get confused with negotiating? Who has the flippin' ball here? It's obviously not the company, even if they were allowed to continue with their poll. Completely befuddled..... Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 >>Completely befuddled<< You and me both!! Well said Mitch. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Hi Don, We'd be delighted to welcome you in Naramata if your tour comes by this way. There's wine festivals in both the spring and fall. Most wineries are open for tastings during the summer as well. (Whisper... and we might be able to open a cellar door or two for you as well.) Were TTI to consider themselves unaffected by the CIRB ruling and carry on as before, I'm sure they would be pushing the limits of the labor relation's envelope, both generally and legally. (And I don't discount the possibility that there may be some Code provision which specifically covers this scenario, although I'm not aware of one.) So would your feelings about unions echo the old saying about democracy, that unions are terrible they're just better than all the alternatives? If I have one singular complaint against the unions we deal with, it would be that they have failed to evolve their political and economic views along with that of the milieu we must exist within. Arguably the second most powerful nation in the world collapsed little more than a decade ago, in large part because it could not adapt to the pressure that economic modernization can exert. Yet too often our unions ignore the lesson of that, and imagine that they and their members can exist within a fortress, protected from economic reality. Well, if the USSR couldn't pull it off, I don't think that CUPE or ACPA will, either. Adapt, evolve, prosper. You cannot rearrange the order of those verbs and hope to succeed. Best, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 In a meaningless seque if ever there was one. I'll not that the Moscow stock market hit an all-time high yesterday. Could this be a premonition about AC profit-sharing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 In a meaningless seque if ever there was one. I note that the Moscow stock market hit an all-time high yesterday. Could this be a premonition about AC profit-sharing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Hi Neo; Many thanks...you can count on a visit! It would be a pleasure to debate on a sunny afternoon over a glass or six of chardonnay...! On unions and being the worst except all the others, there's some truth in that and once again the story is complex enough to choose examples which reify one's own view of the union-management dynamic. History is rich enough for all to be able to do that. That's why I like a longer line view of trends, avoiding taking a measurement, if you will, at specific points in time and calling it a phenomena. So presently, the view is, "unions are not a good thing" and there are some aspects to that with which I agree. Dagger, yourself and others have perceived union dynamics accurately in my opinion. Unions are conservative, heavily bureaucratized, imperialist in motive (more members), and very jealous of what power they are able to muster in the labour marketplace. One might stop there to claim that one has described typical union behaviours and one might well be right. The comment was made earlier in this thread, (by Dagger I think) that unions seek and guard their power carefully, the implication being that this was perhaps undesirable in the present modern world because it makes it difficult for corporations to make a profit and drives investors away, as it may very well do here. But in that power resides not authority, but balance. Who among us think that corporations are not similarly endowed with enormous political and economic powers? The long line view is one which contemplates the long-term well-fare of ordinary employees using as a measure the traditional yardsticks of wages and working conditions. Within that long line are variations, sometimes very significant ones in terms of how well employees do when compared with their non-union counterparts. But the question begs to be asked: If there were no trade unions at all, would present-day corporations honestly come to the table, survey their employees' wants, needs etc and voluntarily offer a fair and reasonable wage and benefit program which would sustain ordinary workers as they go about raising, educating and otherwise caring for their families? That is indeed the question that must be asked whenever notions of mutual interest and cooperation in the enterprise is discussed. Would the levels of wages and benefits, (if indeed that is the system which we desire...there are other barter/credit systems which can dispense entirely with this kind of exchange-measurement system and they're already in use at many university campuses) be commensurate with the work performed? How would levels of compensation be determined? By a group of like-minded owners-managers-employees all fulfilling one role? Are those outside of union representation satisfied with remuneration/benefit/pension packages? In short, if Labour Code laws were entirely dispensed with, (a process which is much farther along in the US than in Canada) and employees were without legal representation and had to negotiate on their own as a loose "collective" (or whatever), what would the results look like in say, ten years? The surveying of employees in these circumstances can be viewed as innocent enough although I think that such a perception is naïve. Such an intrusion into the collective bargaining process is not for the moment, but is a turn in the very long road of labour relations which attempts to marginalize representation. Again, the question above needs to be asked: if employees deem (as clearly the employers have) that unions are "in the way" of a better deal (for who...? ), the long line of where this trends requires careful thought and insightful projections of the results. The whole discussion once again needs to return to balance: How are the 3 legs of that stool holding up? Which way is the stool tipping? Why?, and How can it be righted? If employees are the "liability" that most corporations think they are and treat them as, what chance is there without collective representation, of ensuring that in the exchange for trips around the sun spent at work, a fair and living wage commensurate with work performed will be the result of such independant negotiations, (because that is clearly where it is going). I reiterate as I have so often: I would desire that there be no need for unions and that a fair deal can be arranged between employer and employee. I agree with most of your comments and Dagger's when it comes to describing the warts and ugly blemishes of trade union work. I might even say that perhaps its not "the worst alternative except all the others" and that there are other more viable ways of establishing fair wages etc. But for those who dismiss what unions have and can achieve in spite of the problems and very top-down style of almost all unions, the long line must be examined before handing all authority to determine wages over to corporate entities. To me, the discussion is an open one. I believe in trade unions because the alternatives have been shown to be wanting. However, there is reason for hope in any arrangement where employees are properly compensated and not tossed aside after retirement. Its a complex dialogue to be sure and all this just touches the top two feet of a very high mountain... kind regards and here's to sunshine, Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Hi Neo; Many thanks...you can count on a visit! It would be a pleasure to debate on a sunny afternoon over a glass or six of chardonnay...! On unions and being the worst except all the others, there's some truth in that and once again the story is complex enough to choose examples which reify one's own view of the union-management dynamic. History is rich enough for all to be able to do that. That's why I like a longer line view of trends, avoiding taking a measurement, if you will, at specific points in time and calling it a phenomena. So presently, the view is, "unions are not a good thing" and there are some aspects to that with which I agree. Dagger, yourself and others have perceived union dynamics accurately in my opinion. Unions are conservative, heavily bureaucratized, imperialist in motive (more members), and very jealous of what power they are able to muster in the labour marketplace. One might stop there to claim that one has described typical union behaviours and one might well be right. The comment was made earlier in this thread, (by Dagger I think) that unions seek and guard their power carefully, the implication being that this was perhaps undesirable in the present modern world because it makes it difficult for corporations to make a profit and drives investors away, as it may very well do here. But in that power resides not authority, but balance. Who among us think that corporations are not similarly endowed with enormous political and economic powers? The long line view is one which contemplates the long-term well-fare of ordinary employees using as a measure the traditional yardsticks of wages and working conditions. Within that long line are variations, sometimes very significant ones in terms of how well employees do when compared with their non-union counterparts. But the question begs to be asked: If there were no trade unions at all, would present-day corporations honestly come to the table, survey their employees' wants, needs etc and voluntarily offer a fair and reasonable wage and benefit program which would sustain ordinary workers as they go about raising, educating and otherwise caring for their families? That is indeed the question that must be asked whenever notions of mutual interest and cooperation in the enterprise is discussed. Would the levels of wages and benefits, (if indeed that is the system which we desire...there are other barter/credit systems which can dispense entirely with this kind of exchange-measurement system and they're already in use at many university campuses) be commensurate with the work performed? How would levels of compensation be determined? By a group of like-minded owners-managers-employees all fulfilling one role? Are those outside of union representation satisfied with remuneration/benefit/pension packages? In short, if Labour Code laws were entirely dispensed with, (a process which is much farther along in the US than in Canada) and employees were without legal representation and had to negotiate on their own as a loose "collective" (or whatever), what would the results look like in say, ten years? The surveying of employees in these circumstances can be viewed as innocent enough although I think that such a perception is naïve. Such an intrusion into the collective bargaining process is not for the moment, but is a turn in the very long road of labour relations which attempts to marginalize representation. Again, the question above needs to be asked: if employees deem (as clearly the employers have) that unions are "in the way" of a better deal (for who...? ), the long line of where this trends requires careful thought and insightful projections of the results. The whole discussion once again needs to return to balance: How are the 3 legs of that stool holding up? Which way is the stool tipping? Why?, and How can it be righted? If employees are the "liability" that most corporations think they are and treat them as, what chance is there without collective representation, of ensuring that in the exchange for trips around the sun spent at work, a fair and living wage commensurate with work performed will be the result of such independant negotiations, (because that is clearly where it is going). I reiterate as I have so often: I would desire that there be no need for unions and that a fair deal can be arranged between employer and employee. I agree with most of your comments and Dagger's when it comes to describing the warts and ugly blemishes of trade union work. I might even say that perhaps its not "the worst alternative except all the others" and that there are other more viable ways of establishing fair wages etc. But for those who dismiss what unions have and can achieve in spite of the problems and very top-down style of almost all unions, the long line must be examined before handing all authority to determine wages over to corporate entities. To me, the discussion is an open one. I believe in trade unions because the alternatives have been shown to be wanting. However, there is reason for hope in any arrangement where employees are properly compensated and not tossed aside after retirement. Its a complex dialogue to be sure and all this just touches the top two feet of a very high mountain... kind regards and here's to sunshine, Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.