New task force looks to standardize wages, benefits
Unifor is driving a new tactic at the bargaining table in the auto parts sector.
Though pattern bargaining has been applied successfully during negotiations at the Big Three (Ford, General Motors and Chrysler) in the past, it has never been applied as successfully or to the same magnitude in the auto parts sector.
This time around, Unifor has enlisted its auto parts sector director Fergo Berto to helm a task force to look at pattern bargaining across the auto parts industry. Such a model would include standardizing provisions pertaining to wages, employment conditions, recall rights, wage progression schedules and the like.
"What we’re trying to do is get some consistency within one employer," Berto said. "Over the last 10 years — because it was such a negative atmosphere — there were so many closures, people were doing whatever they could to try to save their facilities from closing, that that’s where the collective agreements just started to really change a lot from where they were prior to that," Berto explained.
"We’re trying to refocus and trying to clean up and assess what’s happened over the last five to seven years."
But the new bargaining tactic has sparked concern from some employers and management groups, citing competition as one possible point of contention.
David Amyot, a labour lawyer at McTague Law Firm LLP in Windsor, Ont., said pattern bargaining may sound good but is a little more involved than one might initially expect.
"Theoretically, there is more predictability," Amyot said. "It sounds good in theory but the reality is employers have their own unique set of circumstances, whether it be financial or employment, which pattern bargaining probably wouldn’t take into consideration as much as those employers would want it to."
This is something the union has considered. Berto offered an example of an employee in Windsor, who might be entitled to a top wage rate after three years, while an employee working for the same company in London, Ont., might need five years to get that top rate.
Consistency between the two would provide security for those workers. Wages and benefits are only the tip of the contract iceberg.
"But there are other parts to a collective agreement — wages and benefits are a very small piece of the collective agreement," Berto explained. "There’s no reason we can’t make that a little more uniform throughout the sector. For the members, it provides them with a level of security and benefits across the sector — and I don’t just mean health-care benefits."
Another concern from management might be the cost of a uniformly bargained contract.
"Maybe it’s not implicit but there’s this perception that ‘Oh, this has got to be expensive and it’s got to be bad,’" Amyot said.
"And what I’d say to my clients would be there is nothing forcing you, legally, to pattern bargain. Ultimately, you control your own destiny. It’s not a legal mandate that you have to pattern bargain like they do in the construction industry."
He points to the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) construction contracts in Ontario. Under the provincial Labour Relations Act, certain unions and employers are legally obligated to collectively bargain using a pattern bargaining model.
Pattern deals have pitfalls and benefits, Amyot said, and the mechanism can blossom in a certain climate.
"For the Big Three, I would speculate (pattern bargaining) was to their advantage because they wouldn’t want any one of them to have a radically different set of labour cost parameters than the other," Amyot explained.
For the union, it can be a way to bootstrap better deals, he added. For instance, a tier-three employer might negotiate the baseline conditions, and typically one would expect a tier-two employer to pay a little more than a tier three, and so on.
"As a management-side lawyer, I have some concern with that because we also have to consider the value of the work being performed relative to the employer where the employer isn’t a supply chain," Amyot said.
But because each employer’s situation varies widely and wildly, Amyot said an open mind is key when approaching a new round of negotiations.
"The natural reaction for many is skepticism or concern," he said. "There could be advantages as an employer, but I think some of those advantages are theoretical and they’re based on all the employers in that same tier essentially offering the same set of financial and employment circumstances, which I don’t think actually exist."
A notable local
When it was first established as the union for Chrysler employees in Windsor, Ont., in 1942, Local 444 (then a part of the United Auto Workers), represented auto workers. Since then, the storied chapter has been a breeding ground where key players like the following cut their teeth:
Charlie Brooks, first president of the local, was shot and killed in 1977 by a disgruntled employee who had been fired by Chrysler.
Buzz Hargrove was a member of Local 444 before taking the reins as national president of the Canadian Auto Workers union.
Ken Lewenza served as the fifth president of Local 444 in the mid-1990s and unionized then-new casino workers. He would be the Canadian Auto Workers' last national president before its merger with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union to form Unifor in 2013.
