Air Canada pilot strike vote open.

[moeman]

CNN - Canadian Labor Minister Steve MacKinnon took action Thursday to end the shutdown of the nation’s two major freight railroads less than one day after it started, referring the labor dispute that had closed the railroads to binding arbitration.

“I’ve directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board to assist the parties in settling the outstanding terms of their collective agreements by imposing final binding arbitration,” MacKinnon said in press conference Thursday. The government also ordered a resumption of activities and extending the term of the current collective agreements until new agreements have been signed.

The move is a victory for Canadian National and Candian Pacific Kansas City Southern, the two major railroads which had been seeking government intervention. Management of the two railroads had been requesting government intervention. They said they had been forced to shut down their networks, despite the disruption it would cause, because there was no way to reach a deal with the Teamsters union that represents 9,000 of their workers.

MacKinnon said he assessed both parties were at a “fundamental impasse.”

“There is no question that we are at an impasse. The issues remain, the parties remain very, very far apart on these issues… it’s not my job to pick sides here,” MacKinnon said.

But with two national railways with suspended operations, “it is the government’s duty and responsibility to ensure industrial peace in this critically vital sector,” he said at the press conference.

The move is a setback for the union, which had argued the best and fairest way to settle the labor dispute was to have the two sides reach an agreement at the bargaining table. They blamed greed by railroads negotiators and management demands that the union argues would hurt rail safety and the quality of life of its employees, a charge the railroads deny.

Businesses groups, including the chambers of commerce in both Canada and the United States, had also been calling for government intervention, saying the economies of both countries could be damaged by the shutdown.

But ahead of the lockout that started early Thursday, MacKinnon had refused to use his powers to refer the matter to binding arbitration and get the railroads back on the job.

The shutdown demonstrated how closely linked Canada and the United States’ economies are, with many industries depending on the free movement of goods across the border for their efficient operations. About 30% of the freight carried by the two railroads cross the US-Canadian border, and without rail operations there is not nearly enough truck capacity to move the goods.

An extended labor stoppage threatened the US auto industry: some US auto plants could have been forced to temporarily shut down if they were unable to get engines, transmissions or stampings done at Canadian plants. US farmers might have found that shortages of fertilizer and US water treatment plants near the Candian border, and they could have run of out chlorine they use to purify water.

This was the first time that both major Canadian railroads have shut down at the same time due to a labor dispute. The most recent work stoppage in the industry was a 60-hour strike

[boestar]

On 8/14/2024 at 4:00 PM, conehead said:

But, realistically; if AC Mainline shuts down, what will be the need for many of the scheduled Jazz flights? Or does the CPA pay Jazz to operate the flights anyway? Even when near empty?

The CPA Pays Jazz for the AVAILABLE seat capacity.  if its available Jazz gets paid.

[Turbofan]

6 hours ago, moeman said:

CNN - Canadian Labor Minister Steve MacKinnon took action Thursday to end the shutdown of the nation’s two major freight railroads less than one day after it started, referring the labor dispute that had closed the railroads to binding arbitration.

“I’ve directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board to assist the parties in settling the outstanding terms of their collective agreements by imposing final binding arbitration,” MacKinnon said in press conference Thursday. The government also ordered a resumption of activities and extending the term of the current collective agreements until new agreements have been signed.

The move is a victory for Canadian National and Candian Pacific Kansas City Southern, the two major railroads which had been seeking government intervention. Management of the two railroads had been requesting government intervention. They said they had been forced to shut down their networks, despite the disruption it would cause, because there was no way to reach a deal with the Teamsters union that represents 9,000 of their workers.

MacKinnon said he assessed both parties were at a “fundamental impasse.”

“There is no question that we are at an impasse. The issues remain, the parties remain very, very far apart on these issues… it’s not my job to pick sides here,” MacKinnon said.

But with two national railways with suspended operations, “it is the government’s duty and responsibility to ensure industrial peace in this critically vital sector,” he said at the press conference.

The move is a setback for the union, which had argued the best and fairest way to settle the labor dispute was to have the two sides reach an agreement at the bargaining table. They blamed greed by railroads negotiators and management demands that the union argues would hurt rail safety and the quality of life of its employees, a charge the railroads deny.

Businesses groups, including the chambers of commerce in both Canada and the United States, had also been calling for government intervention, saying the economies of both countries could be damaged by the shutdown.

But ahead of the lockout that started early Thursday, MacKinnon had refused to use his powers to refer the matter to binding arbitration and get the railroads back on the job.

The shutdown demonstrated how closely linked Canada and the United States’ economies are, with many industries depending on the free movement of goods across the border for their efficient operations. About 30% of the freight carried by the two railroads cross the US-Canadian border, and without rail operations there is not nearly enough truck capacity to move the goods.

An extended labor stoppage threatened the US auto industry: some US auto plants could have been forced to temporarily shut down if they were unable to get engines, transmissions or stampings done at Canadian plants. US farmers might have found that shortages of fertilizer and US water treatment plants near the Candian border, and they could have run of out chlorine they use to purify water.

This was the first time that both major Canadian railroads have shut down at the same time due to a labor dispute. The most recent work stoppage in the industry was a 60-hour strike

The government only seeks reelection.  The CIRB enforces the law. 
 

We have no idea what the minister referral says about the right to strike.  We have no idea how the CIRB will respond to removing the right to strike. ( If that is even what the minister intends). Or how long it will take the CIRB to respond.

In the meantime the strike continues.

So far it’ looks a lot like a version of WJ maintenance.

Lots of political posturing going on.  Lots of pressure on the government with both rail companies locked out.  

Based on legal.  You can’t force anyone into arbitration, unless it is first contract arbitration, without parliament reconvening and back to work legislation being passed.  The CIRB can’t do it on a referral.

We will have to see.  It looks a lot like the government may just be trying to look like they tried to do something.

In the mean time no one’s right to strike has been infringed.

The strike continues.

Time will tell.  The right to strike will be challenged aggressively by Employers. Shutting down the entire rail system by lockout is pretty damb aggressive. It will have to be defended aggressively by unions.

[Seeker]

21 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

The government only seeks reelection.  The CIRB enforces the law. 
 

We have no idea what the minister referral says about the right to strike.  We have no idea how the CIRB will respond to removing the right to strike. ( If that is even what the minister intends). Or how long it will take the CIRB to respond.

In the meantime the strike continues.

So far it’ looks a lot like a version of WJ maintenance.

Lots of political posturing going on.  Lots of pressure on the government with both rail companies locked out.  

Based on legal.  You can’t force anyone into arbitration, unless it is first contract arbitration, without parliament reconvening and back to work legislation being passed.  The CIRB can’t do it on a referral.

We will have to see.  It looks a lot like the government may just be trying to look like they tried to do something.

In the mean time no one’s right to strike has been infringed.

The strike continues.

Time will tell.  The right to strike will be challenged aggressively by Employers. Shutting down the entire rail system by lockout is pretty dam aggressive. It will have to be defended aggressively by unions.

I'm surprised by the media coverage that seems be; "fait accompli", problem solved.  Even the "experts" they have generally don't seem to understand this.  

I agree with comment that the government just wants to look like they did "something".  Maybe this is their "out".  "We referred it to the CIRB and they refused.  Well, we did our best".

The next few days will be interesting.  I have several bets (not real bets) going with non-airline people who believe that the rail workers are just going to back to work and take whatever crumbs they can get from the CIRB.  Furthermore that the AC pilots will face the same hammer and also just go back to work (if they even stopped) and take some crumbs.  I think neither will happen.  I think the rail workers will fight it as the Westjet AMEs did and that the AC pilots have the will to do the same if necessary.

 

 

[Turbofan]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/what-can-government-do-rail-labour-dispute-shutdown-1.7302215

Lisa Raitt, who served as labour minister in the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, said referring the dispute to the CIRB won't instantly end the work stoppage. She said the companies and the union first have to agree to binding arbitration.

"You can try to get the parties to agree to binding arbitration. Maybe you can write to the CIRB and ask them to impose binding arbitration… but there's no way a minister can write a letter and say that everyone goes back to work and I'm sending you to binding arbitration," she said.

"If you find a lawyer who can tell you that it's possible [for the minister to order the parties into arbitration], then I wish I had their advice 15 years ago. But as far as I'm concerned, you aren't able to do that."

[deicer]

The fine line being walked here, imo, is whether or not they want to designate transportation as an 'essential service' and take away the right to strike.  

They are hesitant to do that because once you designate an 'essential service', you have to pay them 'essential service money'.

So while one would definitely benefit the economy, the corporations balk at it because it would cut into profits.

 

[Seeker]

12 minutes ago, deicer said:

The fine line being walked here, imo, is whether or not they want to designate transportation as an 'essential service' and take away the right to strike.  

They are hesitant to do that because once you designate an 'essential service', you have to pay them 'essential service money'.

So while one would definitely benefit the economy, the corporations balk at it because it would cut into profits.

 

AC has approximately a 44% market share (domestically).  Hard to make the argument it's "essential".

[deicer]

41 minutes ago, Seeker said:

AC has approximately a 44% market share (domestically).  Hard to make the argument it's "essential".

Well, history backs me up on this one.  

Apparently it's essential enough to pass back to work legislation even before we went on strike.  So who was the government supporting?

https://globalnews.ca/news/249931/a-harper-history-of-back-to-work-legislation/

[Seeker]

5 minutes ago, deicer said:

Well, history backs me up on this one.  

Apparently it's essential enough to pass back to work legislation even before we went on strike.  So who was the government supporting?

https://globalnews.ca/news/249931/a-harper-history-of-back-to-work-legislation/

You failed on this one.  History changed in 2015 when the right-to-strike was found to a Constitutional Right.  Anything that happened before that is irrelevant.  The government's ability to intervene is greatly diminished. 

They have 3 options;

1) refer it to the CIRB (which is what they have done with the rail workers)  The CIRB will likely reject binding arbitration based on the 2015 Supreme Court ruling.

2) Enact back-to-work legislation.  This requires re-calling Parliament early and getting support from the other Parties - how likely is this?  Might also cause a vote of nonconfidence and bring down the government.

3) use the notwithstanding clause.  This is the nuclear option.  Unlikely because of the political implications.

 

[Seeker]

Lisa Raitt, who served as labour minister in the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, said referring the dispute to the CIRB won't instantly end the work stoppage. She said the companies and the union first have to agree to binding arbitration.

"You can try to get the parties to agree to binding arbitration. Maybe you can write to the CIRB and ask them to impose binding arbitration… but there's no way a minister can write a letter and say that everyone goes back to work and I'm sending you to binding arbitration," she said.

"If you find a lawyer who can tell you that it's possible [for the minister to order the parties into arbitration], then I wish I had their advice 15 years ago. But as far as I'm concerned, you aren't able to do that."

[deicer]

39 minutes ago, Seeker said:

You failed on this one.  History changed in 2015 when the right-to-strike was found to a Constitutional Right.  Anything that happened before that is irrelevant.  The government's ability to intervene is greatly diminished. 

They have 3 options;

1) refer it to the CIRB (which is what they have done with the rail workers)  The CIRB will likely reject binding arbitration based on the 2015 Supreme Court ruling.

2) Enact back-to-work legislation.  This requires re-calling Parliament early and getting support from the other Parties - how likely is this?  Might also cause a vote of nonconfidence and bring down the government.

3) use the notwithstanding clause.  This is the nuclear option.  Unlikely because of the political implications.

 

So, with the political histories, only time will tell which option is taken.

I do think #3 is out of play, much like you said because of the implications.

[neverminds]

I don't think #3 will be used either. I think they will stick with #1 this time and let it play out, for better or for worse. When the AC pilots are able to walk of September 17, the house will be in session so that makes legislating back to work a little easier. Would the NDP support the LIBs on said legislation? who knows, but wouldn't it be a terrible look on the Conservatives not to support the Libs in that case? They are the pro-business party after all

[Seeker]

5 minutes ago, neverminds said:

I don't think #3 will be used either. I think they will stick with #1 this time and let it play out, for better or for worse. When the AC pilots are able to walk of September 17, the house will be in session so that makes legislating back to work a little easier. Would the NDP support the LIBs on said legislation? who knows, but wouldn't it be a terrible look on the Conservatives not to support the Libs in that case? They are the pro-business party after all

Any back to work legislation would be challenged in count and defeated.  That, of course, takes time and might mean the pilots must continue working in the meanwhile.  I am also concerned about how the Conservatives might fall on this one.  They do not have a record of supporting workers but will likely weight the impact of supporting the Libs vs causing them harm.

[J.O.]

4 hours ago, neverminds said:

I don't think #3 will be used either. I think they will stick with #1 this time and let it play out, for better or for worse. When the AC pilots are able to walk of September 17, the house will be in session so that makes legislating back to work a little easier. Would the NDP support the LIBs on said legislation? who knows, but wouldn't it be a terrible look on the Conservatives not to support the Libs in that case? They are the pro-business party after all

The NDP has already stated publicly that they do not support forcing the railways back to work, so the Liberal's can't get back to work legislation passed using their "coalition" with the NDP. The big question will be, what do the Conservatives do if the Liberals reconvene parliament in an effort to legislate an end to the rail strike? If the CPC votes against it, they're basically saying all their talk about damage to the economy was just talk and that politics are more important. If they vote in favour, well let's just say I'd be loading up on popcorn and sitting back to watch the show.

Edited August 23 by J.O.

[Turbofan]

13 hours ago, Seeker said:

I'm surprised by the media coverage that seems be; "fait accompli", problem solved.  Even the "experts" they have generally don't seem to understand this.  

 

 

Actually I am not surprised about the media coverage.  The same lack of understanding was displayed during the WJ AMFA strike and the Ontario teachers strike.

There are small cracks of understanding but far a few between.

[Turbofan]

3 hours ago, deicer said:

Well, history backs me up on this one.  

Apparently it's essential enough to pass back to work legislation even before we went on strike.  So who was the government supporting?

https://globalnews.ca/news/249931/a-harper-history-of-back-to-work-legislation/

That was the Harper Governments  “ Essential to the Economy” gambit.

There is no such thing as essential to the economy.  There never was.  It was just a tag line used by Harper as an excuse for Back to Work legislation.  Much of Harper’s behaviour, and other politicians, is why the right to strike became a constitutional right.  It became clear politicians had zero respect for workers right to strike.  Therefore they elevated it to a constitutional right.

What we are seeing is everyone adjusting to the new reality.  Some trying to challenge it.  Others trying to protect it.  The jurisprudence evolves as we go.

The CIRB has been very very clear since Harper.

Essential service is life, limb or security.  Nothing less.

 WestJet tried the essential service gambit with their pilots.  They backed out of the gambit because of the CIRB’s initial very unfavourable reaction.

The gouvernement has already referred the rail lines to the CIRB to determine if anything is an essential service.  The CIRB ruled nothing was essential.  Even water treatment chemicals.  
 

[deicer]

2 hours ago, neverminds said:

I don't think #3 will be used either. I think they will stick with #1 this time and let it play out, for better or for worse. When the AC pilots are able to walk of September 17, the house will be in session so that makes legislating back to work a little easier. Would the NDP support the LIBs on said legislation? who knows, but wouldn't it be a terrible look on the Conservatives not to support the Libs in that case? They are the pro-business party after all

Isn't politics wonderful?

Free market is free market, that is until the corporations start, shall we say, influencing?

free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal. As the free market represents a benchmark that does not actually exist, modern societies can only approach or approximate this ideal of efficient resource allocation and can be described along a spectrum ranging from low to high amounts of regulation.

https://www.britannica.com/money/free-market

[neverminds]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cirb-decision-railway-dispute-1.7304194

[neverminds]

“the board on Saturday said the tribunal had no authority to decide whether the minister's directive was valid.The board has concluded that, in this case, it has no discretion or ability to refuse to implement, in whole or in part, the minister's directions or to modify their terms," chairperson Ginette Brazeau wrote in a pair of rulings”

A couple of weeks ago during the  WestJet Mechanics strike, the board clearly felt they had the authority to decide if the Minister’s directive was valid. So much so that they declared the directive was actually invalid. What changed? did the board get neutered recently? WTF?

 

 

[Turbofan]

18 hours ago, neverminds said:

“the board on Saturday said the tribunal had no authority to decide whether the minister's directive was valid.The board has concluded that, in this case, it has no discretion or ability to refuse to implement, in whole or in part, the minister's directions or to modify their terms," chairperson Ginette Brazeau wrote in a pair of rulings”

A couple of weeks ago during the  WestJet Mechanics strike, the board clearly felt they had the authority to decide if the Minister’s directive was valid. So much so that they declared the directive was actually invalid. What changed? did the board get neutered recently? WTF?

 

 

It would appear that FETCO’s lobbying prevailed.

The government referral to the CIRB was the same argument as FETCO presented in the attached letter made public as the rail strike started.  The argument is designed to be unanswerable at the CIRB.  Therefore it gets kicked down the road to federal court.  Possibly ends up back at the Supp Court.

It is unlikely this gets clarified by the courts in the near term, so it will likely remain in the Liberal ministers arsenal for the near term.

It adds up now why the Liberal government didn’t seem too upset about being backed into a corner by the two rail lines.  You would have figured they would be **bleep**.  Nope they rewarded them instead.

The FETCO letter also mentions the Aviation sector for the next likely impasse.

 

FETCO-Letter-Minister-Options-2025-Labour-Disruptions-Aug.-19-2024-FINAL.pdf

[boestar]

I thought the Right to Strike was deemed constitutional.  Was there not a case heard over the last couple of years that set the precedent and enshrined the right to strike as constitutional?  That means the no legislation can be made to force them back.  Only the not withstanding clause can do that.

   

[Turbofan]

20 minutes ago, boestar said:

I thought the Right to Strike was deemed constitutional.  Was there not a case heard over the last couple of years that set the precedent and enshrined the right to strike as constitutional?  That means the no legislation can be made to force them back.  Only the not withstanding clause can do that.

   

Yes.  But the minister’s referral basically hog tied the CIRB.  They did not endorse the ministers referral.  Nor did they oppose.  What they said is based on the argument they felt they didn’t have jurisdiction.

Clever lawyers and a complicit Liberal Government.

That means challenging to a higher court to get an answer which the CN union is doing.  It likely won’t stick, it may have to go back to the Supp Court even, but in the interim it’s a risk to anyone flirting with labour action.

We may end up joining in the line with the CN union.
 

Anyway we always knew the right to strike was not indefinite. Based on what was happening we were guessing probably two weeks ish.  Now that looks like a range from a few days to a few weeks.

Remember this is not like Harper in 2011.  He preemptively intervened.  ACPA never gave strike notice.  AC never started winding down the fleet.  Forward bookings were never impacted.

Today is completely different.  Remember the greatest leverage is in the last 72 hours before strike.  In fact leverage drops as a strike lengthens.

“You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish for ”

The other Donald

[boestar]

Right but taking it to a higher court will just result in " We are not hearing this as it is a constitutional matter... Off to the SPC" 

Back to work legislation wont work because it is a constitutional matter.  You cannot enact leglislation that contradicts the constitution. 

Then the Notwithstanding clause which they will not use on a federal level.

The strike will be the strike and they need to go back to the table and hammer it out.

As for AC it will be the same thing.  Walk or Talk are the only options

 

[Turbofan]

Point one of your post.

The ministerial order bought themselves time.  Kicked it down the road. 
 

Bottom line?  So long as this is not rectified, and it won’t be by September 17, we are at risk of being kicked down the road as well.

Now you enter into “Is that even what AC would want”. I don’t know.

Back to the point.  Situational awareness.  You go to war with what you have.  You make what you have work.

 

 

[Seeker]

11 hours ago, Turbofan said:

 

That means challenging to a higher court to get an answer which the CN union is doing.  It likely won’t stick, it may have to go back to the Supp Court even, but in the interim it’s a risk to anyone flirting with labour action.

We may end up joining in the line with the CN union.
 

So, the railway workers are forced back to work and two years from now the Supreme Court deems the gov's action illegal - what are the implications, what remedy or compensation is due?

I see the AC pilots in the same situation; it goes to midnight and they're out on the street (strike or lockout) after a short period (couple of days or a week) the gov instructs the CIRB to direct them to arbitration and they go back to work.  The arbitration process results in a new contract and 2 years later the Supreme Court says the whole thing was illegal.  Now what?  Too bad, so sad and the pilots get nothing?