Showing posts with label binding arbitration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label binding arbitration. Show all posts

Sunday, August 17, 2025

UPDATED: A Craven Capitulation To Corporate Canada


To say I am beside myself with disgust and loathing for our 'new' Liberal government would be an understatement. That is not to say, however, that I am the least bit surprised, except perhaps by the speed with which it capitulated to its corporate overseers.

By now, I'm sure most know that the back to work/compulsory arbitration order came from Jobs Minister Patty Hadju a mere 12 hours after Air Canada flight attendants struck. This ensures that the employees will continue, for the time being, working for free for the carrier while on the ground until the arbitration process is complete. And that process will likely leave unpaid work, the major element of the strike, unresolved.

Cupe has responded by accusing the of Liberal Party of "violating our charter rights". They allege that forcing a bargain to end the strike will "ensure unresolved issues will continue to worsen by kicking them down the road".
Also noteworthy is the justification Hadju used for so precipitously ending the job action, a justification that eerily echoes the kind of rhetoric and rationale Trump uses to legitimize his illegal tariffs on the world. 

Trump, you may recall, justified his unilateral imposition of the import duties by declaring a national economic emergency. Hadju mimicked him in her own justification:

"This is not a decision that I have taken lightly but the potential for immediate negative impact on Canadians and our economy is simply too great," Hajdu said at a news conference in Ottawa Saturday. 

And reminiscent of the old Groucho Marx line,  "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes," Hadju states:

"I absolutely reject the notion that our government is anti-union," she said.

"In a case like this, where multiple efforts have been made to conclude an agreement that satisfies both parties, and it is clear that they are at an impasse, it is very clear they need some help in arbitrating the final items."

Many are not buying this: 

"It really is a troubling development," said Barry Eidlin, an expert on labour and social movements at McGill University.

"Section 107 basically just allows the labour minister this unilateral power to intervene to order workers back to work against their will. And that is extremely concerning."

And the crux of the matter is this:

"We have a real concern that employers are getting the message that they can simply surface bargain, let the issues run to impasse and at that point the government will intervene," said Chris Roberts, director of social and economic policy at the Canadian Labour Congress.

So there we have it. Yet another iteration of the Liberals as Conservative Lite. If I were PP and his pals, I would be starting to despair about any hopes of early return to power.

BREAKING NEWS: Well, things are getting very interesting. 

Air Canada flight attendants will defy the back-to-work order and remain on strike after the federal government ordered binding arbitration to end the work stoppage, the Canadian Union of Public Employees told Radio-Canada on Sunday.

The union, which represents the 10,000 flight attendants, has accused federal Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu of caving to Air Canada's demands.

"I don't think anyone's in the mood to go back to work," Lillian Speedie, vice-president of CUPE Local 4092, told CBC's News Network at a picket line outside Toronto Pearson International Airport in Mississauga on Sunday.

"To legislate us back to work 12 hours after we started? I'm sorry, snowstorms have shut down Air Canada for longer than we were allowed to strike."

 CUPE maintained it opposed arbitration, instead preferring to solve the impasse through bargaining. It said her decision "sets a terrible precedent."

"The Liberal government is rewarding Air Canada's refusal to negotiate fairly by giving them exactly what they wanted," the union wrote...

Stay tuned for whatever happens next. 


UPDATE: David Climehaga does his usual excellent work at Alberta Politics. Take a look at his latest post to see his take on the entire issue.

 

Saturday, August 16, 2025

UPDATED: Will They Or Won't They?


No doubt, the temptation is great. With a stroke of a pen, the Liberal government could curry massive favour from both powerful corporate forces and the flying public, ordering striking Air Canada flight attendants back to work pending binding arbitration, whereby the labour dispute is put before an arbitrator for final resolution.

Such a decision would be a massive mistake and a grave injustice to collective bargaining in general and the striking personnel in particular, yet I fear that is precisely what our 'new' government will do. 

Consider the powerful forces calling for arbitration: Air Canada itself, which estimates a revenue loss of $50-60 million dollars per day. As well, 

[b]usiness groups have meanwhile warned of the damage a protracted dispute will do to the economy and have called on the government to consider all its options for ending the dispute — including imposing binding arbitration.

The request for  arbitration was sent to Jobs Minister Patti Hadju, who, for now, wants the two sides to keep bargaining. But how much real bargaining can there be if the hope/expectation is for government intervention?

The previous government, led by Justin Trudeau, ordered binding arbitration for both striking railways and B.C. port workers; in both cases, it could be argued they did so in the national interest, given the role both play in the economy and. that they exist almost as essential services. The same, however, cannot be said about air travel, especially when alternatives to Air Canada exist.

Brock University labour professor Larry Savage has this to say about the threat of arbitration:

“Management at Air Canada is taking a strategic cue from employers in the ports and the railways,” said Savage. 

While he said there is “a long tradition” in Canada of government intervention in labour disputes, Savage said the increasing reliance on Section 107 of the labour code is “troublesome” because it allows the minister to take action without any parliamentary debate, as would be necessary for governments to pass back-to-work legislation. 

“It also highlights how easily collective bargaining rights can be trampled on,” said Savage. 

“When the government swoops in only at the behest of employers, it undermines our entire system of labour relations.” 

The response from CUPE, the flight attendants union, was unequivocal.

The Air Canada Component of CUPE has respectfully urged Employment Minister Patty Hajdu not to intervene pursuant to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code thereby permitting collective bargaining to continue and allowing the parties to negotiate a resolution.

The integrity of the collective bargaining process depends on allowing the parties to reach a resolution through free and fair negotiations, without undue interference.

Rather than continuing to negotiate in good faith, Air Canada appears to have anticipated government intervention and has opted to suspend meaningful discussions, contrary to its legal obligation to bargain in good faith.

On August 12, 2025, Air Canada unilaterally declared an impasse and withdrew from the bargaining table. It has not returned. On August 12, 2025, unbeknownst to the Union, the Company made an extraordinary and premature request to the Minister seeking the application of section 107 to prevent a strike or lockout.

It is clear from Air Canada’s submissions to the Minister that it had planned to withdraw from bargaining and ask the Minister to interfere with the bargaining process.

The mere prospect of ministerial intervention has had a chilling effect on Air Canada’s obligation to bargain in good faith. Air Canada’s request for intervention should be denied. Such a decision would reaffirm the principles of free collective bargaining and compel Air Canada to return to the bargaining table – where it ought to be – and engage meaningfully in negotiations, where it is likely that the Parties may be able to reach an agreement.

You can read the full statement at the link above.

Finally, I leave you with a satirical video, a link to which a commentator left on my previous post that perhaps puts things into their proper perspective:


UPDATE: Well, they did. Captured as they are by big business, the Carney government has announced the end of the strike by mandating binding arbitration. You can read this pathetic tale using the link.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Are Canadians as Fed Up as the People in Ohio?

This past Tuesday, the voters in Ohio told their state legislature that they have had enough. In response to a law enacted with the help of the wealthy Koch Brothers that essentially stripped all collective bargaining rights from public-sector workers, and despite efforts by the wealthy right to suppress their voice, citizens got busy collecting signatures to put [that law] to the test of the ballot box. On Tuesday night, the people defeated the anti-worker law, Senate Bill 5, by a resounding 61 percent majority.

You can read the full story here, but the question I can't help asking myself is whether or not Canadians would have been so vigorous in their defense of workers' rights here. We seem to place as our highest priority our own convenience, and when labour disruptions loom, as they did last summer with the the postal workers and more recently with Air Canada flight attendants, there is nary a word of protest from the general public when the government acts unethically by either imposing a settlement, as it did with the posties, or prevents the attendants from striking a private company by referring the dispute to the Industrial Relations Board (on the flimsy pretext of health and safety concerns) that ultimately led to a binding arbitration contract, the same contract, by the way, that the attendants had already rejected.

Given the ability of our own government to stir up envy and resentment amongst those who are struggling, I don't doubt that we will see a broadening of the definition of 'essential service' in the future.

And that, despite the demagogic rhetoric of our government, will ultimately serve the interests of only a very narrow band of Canadians.