 |
Click here for the latest news regarding CLAC and YOU! |
|
CLAC talks
about how fast its numbers are growing across Canada - and with tricks like these, which leave workers with little role in choosing the union they want to represent
them, it's not surprising. There are a number of games CLAC plays, including closing open periods, voluntary recognitions, noah's ark organizing, negotiating agreements without worker input, and getting rid of "problem" members, that some workers don't think are very fair. How do these games work? Read on... One
of the most important rights workers have is the right to choose the union they
want to represent them, and to decide to change unions when the one they have
isn't doing a good job anymore. Labour
laws set out when workers can change their union if they want to. This is called
the "open period" of a contract. In
one case that went to court, it was revealed that a CLAC contractor, because
of their labour agreement with CLAC, actually had to walk off the job before
the job was done so they could avoid the open period! Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench,
Judicial District of Calgary Husky Oil Operations Ltd. v. Ledcor Industries Ltd. September 5, 2003 Paragraph 10 and 69 Adding insult to injury, they then tried to cover it up by getting a letter
from Husky to make it look like they weren't trying to avoid the open period! "During
March, Ledcor requested a letter from Husky asking it to leave the project on
March 31, 1998. This letter was provided on March 23, 1998. The
evidence is clear that the sole reason for Ledcor requesting this letter was
to make it to appear that Ledcor was not leaving the site due to its labour
arrangements, even though the opposite was true.
... this letter was requested solely so Ledcor could use it to substantiate the myth that it had not voluntarily decided to close down during the open period, but rather been told that its work was over." Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench,
Judicial District of Calgary Husky Oil Operations Ltd. v. Ledcor Industries Ltd. September 5, 2003 Paragraph 12 and 72
"The
effect of the creation of the GPOP agreement was to deprive the JVD carpenters
working on GPOP from exercising their rights to change unions in November and
December 2001 which was the open period under the Provincial Agreement. By the
time that open period arrived, rights under the agreement had been terminated
in favour of rights created under the GPOP agreement. While there would have
been an open period under the GPOP agreement, it would not arise until the final
two months of its operation, January and February 2003. The further loss of
that open period could also arise if again a replacement agreement was earlier
negotiated between JVD and CLAC. In this fashion, on an ongoing basis the JVD
carpenters could indefinitely lose their right to an open period, and therefore
to change the union which represented them.
JVD and CLAC had thus created a chain of replacement collective agreements, each coming into operation before the open period under its predecessor commenced indefinitely, precluding the JVD carpenters from changing from representation by CLAC to another union." Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench,
Judicial District of Edmonton United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 v. J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. December 10, 2004 Paragraph 57 and 58 To
make matters worse, they negotiated this contract when there weren't even any
employees yet! Some choice... "...a
collective agreement (the GPOP agreement) dated September 22, 2000 between JVD
and CLAC in relation to a Grande Prairie project (GPOP) with a term of September
1, 2000 to February 28, 2003. As of September 22, 2000 JVD had not yet hired
any employees who would be bound by the GPOP agreement, and no employees were
yet working on the GPOP project. At the same time a Supplemental Agreement was
made which exempted GPOP from the operation of the Provincial Agreement."
Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench,
Judicial District of Edmonton United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 v. J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. December 10, 2004 Paragraph 13 But,
once employees arrived to do the work, they had the chance to decide if they
actually wanted to close the open period, right? Wrong... "At
the time they were asked to sign the form agreeing to accept the terms and conditions
of employment, the persons concerned were signing this document as one of many
mandatory forms for them to complete to begin employment. ... Evidence from
CLAC and JVD confirmed that without signing this form, persons could not work
at the site. Although they agreed to abide by its terms, persons signing the
document did not understand it to be a ratification of the settlement which
could form a collective agreement. This method was not an invitation for employees
to express their free choice on the content of the settlement."
Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench,
Judicial District of Edmonton United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 v. J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. December 10, 2004 Paragraph 62 These are just two examples of the extremes CLAC seems willing to go to in order to close open periods. But there is a clear pattern of signing deals just before workers are about to enter the open period, when they might get rid of CLAC. The chart below shows some of the recent collective agreements that CLAC has signed which has closed an open period and taken away the option of the employees to switch from CLAC to another union. As you can see, in a number of cases the new contract goes into effect the exact same day that the open period would open!
It sure seems like CLAC doesn't want its members to enter an open period!
When a union closes an open period this often, you have to ask if they're intentionally
trying to avoid giving members a choice about who they want to represent them
at work. Voluntary
recognition is when an employer decides to accept the workers' desire to have
a union without going through a certification process. Voluntary recognition
isn't always a bad thing - sometimes an employer sees the advantages of dealing
with a union; sometimes the employer is union-friendly; and sometimes employers
just don't want to go through the sometimes adversarial certification process
when they know a majority of employees want a union. Unfortunately, some employers use the voluntarily recognition of one union as
a tool to keep other unions out. Here's just one example of an employer calling
CLAC to keep another union out: "...
Vertex contacted the Christian Labour Association of Canada ("CLAC") with an
offer of voluntary recognition with a view that Vertex would likely be facing
certification applications from the building trades unions."
Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Vertex Construction Services Ltd. decision March 17, 1999 Page 2, paragraph 1 When
voluntary recognition of a union becomes a regular pattern, especially when
employers keep calling the same union and offering to recognize them, maybe
workers should ask why. "...
there are risks to voluntary recognition which are not present, or are less
likely to be present, where the relationship is initiated by a certificate or
bargaining authority issued by a labour board, following the full paraphernalia
of certification proceedings. For example, there is a danger that a "sweetheart"
deal may be struck, one which favours the trade-union and management but which
is to the distinct disadvantage of the employees.
Alternatively, an employer may, for no readily apparent reason invite a trade-union to enter into a collective agreement, but later examination reveals that the employer's objective was to influence his employees against another trade-union which had been experiencing some organizational success. Finally, even in the absence of such clear improprieties, it is entirely possible that a voluntary recognition will result in the employees having foisted on them a bargaining agent which they never wanted and still do not want." Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Vertex Construction Services Ltd. Decision March 17, 1999 Paragraph 28 We couldn't have said
it better ourselves... [top] Lately, CLAC has been changing the
name of the game, and they are actually letting the employees vote on whether
they want the union or not. This means that fewer CLAC agreements than in the past
are voluntary recognitions. 2 Boilermakers 2 Construction Labourers 2 Operating Engineers 2 Ironworkers The result? Four certifications, no employer objections, and everyone else who starts work is now a CLAC member.
2 Carpenters 2 Plumbers and Pipefitters 2 Structural Ironworkers The result? Three certifications, no employer objections, and everyone else who starts work is now a CLAC member.
2 Operating Engineers 2 Millwrights 2 Construction Labourers The result? Three certifications, no employer objections, and everyone else who starts work is now a CLAC member.
2 Ironworkers 2 Plumbers and Pipefitters 2 Labourers 2 Carpenters 2 Operating Engineers 2 Electricians The result? Six certifications, no employer objections, and everyone else who starts work is now a CLAC member.
3 Plumbers and Pipefitters 2 Operating Engineers 5 Structural Ironworkers 2 Labourers The result? Four certifications, no employer objections, and everyone else who starts work is now a CLAC member.
On May 10, 2005 CLAC applied to represent workers in a number of trades at Kiewit
Industrial Canada Co. 2 Ironworkers 2 Operating Engineers 3 Plumbers and Pipefitters 3 Electricians 3 Carpenters 3 Labourers The result? Six certifications, no employer objections, and everyone else who starts work is now a CLAC member.
In another case, CLAC tried to organize
employees at Willbros MSI Canada Ltd. The company had two shops in Edmonton:
an old one with 28 employees and a new one that hadn't even opened yet that
had just 3 employees who were setting up. "...
it is expected that the workforce will increase to about 300 employees from
the 3 that are currently there when it is at capacity." Alberta
Labour Relations Board Memorandum re: Application for certification as bargaining agent brought by the Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 affecting Willbros MSI Canada Inc. September 8, 2005
[top] Negotiating Agreements without Worker Input When workers join unions, they are
agreeing to have that union act as their exclusive bargaining agent with the
employer. Unions then have the power to bargain with the employer as representatives
of the employees. To make this truly democratic and fair to workers, it is very
important that employees are involved and that the union is truly representing
them. "At
the time the agreement was negotiated CLAC had not taken steps to involve the
employees intended to be covered by the agreement."
Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Vertex Construction Services Ltd. decision March 17, 1999 Page 2, paragraph 1 CLAC argues that it doesn't matter
whether or not employees are involved in negotiating the agreement because CLAC
lets employees vote on whether they want to accept the contract. A nice idea,
but the Alberta Labour Relations Board disagrees and explains why: "Where
a union is able to show that it has already achieved a collective agreement
with an employer, in the absence of prior employee support, a clear message
is sent to the employees that the employer wishes to deal with that bargaining
agent, presumably to the exclusion of others. ...
It is difficult to imagine a case where a union, having been invited to enter into a collective bargaining relationship with an employer, and further having obtained a signed document which purports to be a collective agreement between itself and the employer, and further having been advised of the locations at which employees are working and being given access to those locations, could be found to have entered into a valid collective agreement. ... We find that CLAC could not have been said to be a bargaining agent at the time the agreement was entered into. We further find that the ratification process followed by CLAC does not serve to rectify its lack of bargaining agent status." Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Vertex Construction Services Ltd. Decision March 17, 1999 Paragraphs 34, 40 and 43
"CLAC
argued that Board erred in holding that a union must represent the employees
at the time of negotiation in order to enter into a valid voluntary recognition
collective agreement... "
Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Vertex Construction Services Ltd. (Re) decision August 3, 1999 Paragraph 7 Luckily, in this case, the Board saw
through CLAC and said in its decision: "...we
summarily dismiss CLAC's application as being without merit."
Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Vertex Construction Services Ltd. (Re) decision August 3, 1999 Paragraph 13
"...
a collective agreement (the GPOP agreement) dated September 22, 2000 between
JVD and CLAC in relation to a Grande Prairie project (GPOP) with a term of September
1, 2000 to February 28, 2003. As of September 22, 2000 JVD had not yet hired
any employees who would be bound by the GPOP agreement, and no employees were
yet working on the GPOP project. At the same time a Supplemental Agreement was
made which exempted GPOP from the operation of the Provincial Agreement."
Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench,
Judicial District of Edmonton United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 v. J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. December 10, 2004 Paragraph 13
In a number of cases CLAC and an employer
will negotiate a "wall-to-wall" collective agreement that covers all employees
and then negotiate separate agreements as it hires more tradespeople on to work.
The problem with this is that it's another way to make it less likely that employees
will pick a union other than CLAC. As the Alberta Labour Relations Board put
it: "...this
panel remains concerned that the existence of the "wall to wall" collective
agreement may give the wrong impression to employees and other trade unions
that a valid bargaining relationship is in force in respect of the previously
empty trades, and thus inhibit employee choice in collective representation..."
Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Firestone Energy Corp. (Re) October 14, 2004 Paragraph 5 [top]
CLAC puts out a lot of rhetoric about
empowering members and offering real choice. But in a number of cases CLAC members
have learned that when it comes to dealing with their so-called representatives,
it's CLAC's way or the highway. "Counsel
for Mr. Glinz alleges CLAC dropped the grievance, not for reasons based on merit,
but rather, because Mr. Glinz, in the eyes of CLAC, had committed an act of
"treason". He refused to cross a picket line which called into question the
legitimacy of CLAC."
Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Neil O. Glinz, Applicant and Christian Labour Association of Canada, Local No. 63, Respondent and Ledcor Industries Limited, Intervenor August 31, 1992 Page 4 After looking at the evidence, what
did the Board decide about CLAC's commitment to represent the interests of the
people who pay their dues? "CLAC
did not seek advice from legal or other counsel about whether or not to proceed
with the grievance. There is no evidence that CLAC actually even looked at the
collective agreement or the Code to check whether Mr. Glinz in fact breached
the terms of the collective agreement. They simply relied on Ledcor's statement.
...
We find that CLAC's representation was neither fair nor genuine. CLAC processed the grievance only so far as the collective agreement compelled them to take it. Once they reached that point, we are satisfied they were looking for a convenient excuse to get out of the grievance. Ledcor provided them with the opportunity which CLAC seized. Their representation was insincere, apparent on its face. They made an arbitrary decision, giving only superficial attention to the facts at issue. CLAC made little effort to discover the circumstances surrounding Mr. Glinz's case. They showed total disregard for his interests. ... Focusing on the union's conduct at the time of the grievance, leaves us with the negative inference that CLAC felt betrayed by Mr. Glinz's support of a rival union and this was an opportune chance to get rid of an opponent." Alberta
Labour Relations Board
Neil O. Glinz, Applicant and Christian Labour Association of Canada, Local No. 63, Respondent and Ledcor Industries Limited, Intervenor August 31, 1992 Page 7-8
Not exactly the union you want in your
corner when push comes to shove. And it's not the only example of CLAC doing
this sort of thing. When CLAC member Jan Noster gave notice
to CLAC Local 63 that he wanted to stand for election of his Local Board, the
CLAC bosses decided to get rid of him because they didn't agree with what he
thought. According to the Alberta Labour Relations Board decision that ruled in favour
of Mr. Noster: "Mr. Noster gave notice that he intended to stand for election to Local 63's Local Board. Shortly thereafter the incumbent Local Board commenced expulsion proceedings against him and purported to suspend him pending those proceedings. It also determined that it would not approve his as a candidate to stand for union office." Alberta Labour Relations Board Noster (Re) March 24, 1999 Paragraph 2 "We go further than to say that the decision to commence expulsion proceedings was arbitrary. We find the interference irresistible that the decision was motivated by political considerations." Alberta Labour Relations Board What did Mr. Noster do wrong? Well, for one thing, Co Vanderlaan, the CLAC Alberta Director, didn't like him. As the Alberta Labour Relations Board puts it: "Mr. Vanderlaan acknowledged in his testimony before us that Mr. Noster is a "thorn in my flesh." Indeed, we infer that Mr. Vanderlaan and the Board viewed him as a dangerous thorn after he had demonstrated enough support among the membership to have them overturn the suspension..." Alberta Labour Relations Board You'll notice that Mr. Noster had the support of other members of the union, but that doesn't matter when the CLAC boss doesn't like you. Clearly Mr. Vanderlaan and the local board had decided that they weren't going to leave it up to the membership to decide: "Second we note the timing of the Union's attempt to discipline Mr. Noster. Noster's conduct came up for discussion at the same meeting as the question of which candidates the Local Board would approve to stand for election. Indeed, it was placed on the agenda as the item immediately before the approval of candidates. The disciplinary issue could not have been better placed on the agenda to accomplish a political purpose of keeping Noster off the slate of approved candidates and justifying his exclusion. Though these facts by themselves might only excite the Board's suspicion, we are convinced of the ulterior purpose behind the initiation of disciplinary action by the hurried manner in which the discipline was imposed and the sheer impropriety of the Local Board's action. ... We think that such a rash and obviously wrong decision could only be motivated by the Board's desire to rid itself once and for all of a troublesome and politically dangerous member. ... So, whatever the explanation for the imposition of the summary suspension, we are driven to the conclusion that the decision to commence disciplinary proceedings, at the time and in the manner that they were commenced, was tainted by improper considerations: namely the Local Board's and Mr. Vanderlaan's desire to rid CLAC of a member that they viewed as troublesome and subversive, before the member could achieve his expressed political purpose of being elected to the Local Board. No other explanation appears to us to be consistent with the hurried, unquestioning and legally objectionable way in which the Board rushed to deal with Mr. Noster." Alberta Labour Relations Board The message from this case is clear: if your ideas about how your union should be run don't agree with the ideas of CLAC bosses, they'll get rid of you. A bizarre fact came out in this case, which shows CLAC's commitment to member democracy and openness to change: "We learned that in a typical election procedure for this local (Local 63), the incumbent Local Board commences the nomination process by inviting input from the membership on who might stand for election. ... Nominations from the floor are treated only as recommendations to the Local Board. The incumbent Local Board reserves to itself the decision on how many, and which, recommended candidates will be placed on the ballot and submitted to electors. ... Only the nominees selected by the incumbent Board are placed on the ballot, which is then mailed to members." Alberta Labour Relations Board Now that's democracy! The current board, the people who are supposed to represent the interests of the membership, get to decide who will and won't be allowed to run in an election to manage the affairs of the local. We have this crazy idea that deciding who should run the affairs of the union local should be up to the membership...but it doesn't look like CLAC agrees. |