Public, special interests want more restrictions on strikes
On September 10, clerical employees at Bell Canada rejected the company’s latest offer. In the context of possible strike action, the company called on the union to negotiate an essential services agreement. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union stated that it felt the company had the bodies to carry out essential services, but it was prepared to plan in the event of “a natural disaster or any matters relating to National Security.” It is not stated in the bargaining report, but one is led to the conclusion that Bell wants more.
On September 25, members of the Amalgamated Transit Union working for OC Transpo in Ottawa voted down a proposal to use binding arbitration instead of a strike in future contract negotiations. The bus drivers were on strike for eight weeks over the past winter.
During the Toronto and Windsor municipal strikes this summer, there were many calls for declaring garbage collection an essential service. None was more strident than that of Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business: “The Ontario Government needs to permanently stop such union abuse of the public by broadening the definition of essential services in the public/ government sector. [T]he so-called ‘right to strike’ is wrong.”
What are being discussed here are not “essential” services in any strict sense. Anyone who is covered by a collective agreement and whose work really is essential to the immediate health and safety of the public is already deemed essential: police, fire, acute-care nurses. Many others who are in mixed bargaining units are subject to union-management agreements: prison guards, water treatment operators, paramedics.
What is really happening is one side in the labour relations divide is attempting to use legislation to increase its power at the table.
It is summed up well in the statement of claim filed by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour in the Court of Queen’s Bench over that province’s expanded essential services legislation: “The designation of essential services levels and positions under Bill 5 restricts the ability of the union Plaintiffs and their members to place meaningful pressure on employers during labour disputes …”
Generally, if a local cannot strike because its work is essential, a new agreement can be arrived at through arbitration. Practically, this means what they would have achieved at the table, if they had been able. This does not satisfy some proponents of an expanded essential services regime. Again Ms. Swift: “Legislate the strikers back and give arbitrators strict parameters for finalizing their terms and conditions of employment …”
If it is successful, the current drive for an expanded definition of essential services in the broader public sector will create a shift in power of significant proportions.
