Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene
Showing posts with label ontario labour law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ontario labour law. Show all posts
Thursday, September 4, 2014
A Union Victory
About a year ago I wrote two posts on Richtree Market, the union-busting Toronto eatery that got the clever idea of terminating all of its unionized employees, shutting down its restaurant, located in the Eaton Centre, only to reopen later a few doors down (about 50 metres) from its original spot, much larger and still within the Eaton Centre. It rehired none of the former staff but instead offered lower-paying jobs to non-union members.
Happily, this story of corporate craftiness has a happy ending and once more reminds us of the importance and relevance of unions in fighting for and defending workers' rights.
Brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board by the union representing the workers, the
dispute between Richtree Markets and Unite Here Local 75 hinged on the exact street address of the Eaton Centre, with the restaurant arguing the union’s collective bargaining rights didn’t apply to the new site.
Thinking they were clever, Richtree argued
that the street address on the union’s collective agreement, 220 Yonge St., did not apply to the new location, given the address of 14 Queen St. W. — which was not a physical entrance to the mall.
The restaurant's sophistry was readily apparent to the Board:
In January, labour board chair Bernard Fishbein ruled the union’s bargaining rights “should not be extinguished by a move of some 50 metres across the corridor of the mall,” especially to an address “that presently has no real existence other than on a piece of paper.”
“There is no doubt that the official municipal address of the Eaton Centre has not changed (and obviously not moved),” Fishbein wrote in the board’s decision.
Subsequently, about 140 non-unionized workers at Richtree’s Eaton Centre location ratified a new collective agreement last week.
Under the new collective agreement, the 50 employees of the old location will have the opportunity to resume working at the restaurant with their seniority intact.
A victory that is sweet to savor, and one that once more reminds us that workers' rights need to be zealously guarded and never taken for granted.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Another Union-Busting Eatery I Will Not Patronize
Several days ago I commented on a story from The Star about the unsavory labour practices of Richtree Market, a Toronto restaurant that 'closed' its business, terminated all of its unionized staff, only to reopen this coming Monday a few doors down from its prior location. None of the old staff was rehired, and all who currently staff the 'new' operation are non-union, a clear violation of Ontario labour law.
In this morning's edition, The Toronto Star reports that the same tactic has been used by the Lai Wah Heen restaurant, housed within the exclusive Metropolitan Hotel in Toronto:
For 17 years, Ricky Chu served the lauded dim sum at Lai Wah Heen restaurant with a smile. The unionized job at the Metropolitan Hotel eatery fed his kids, after all.
When a new owner took over the hotel in January, the high-end restaurant was shut down. Chu lost his job. But he considered it salt in the wound when Lai Wah Heen reopened in March — without him or ten other servers who were laid off. In their place was a non-unionized staff.
The Metropolitan Hotel changed hands this year, being purchased by Bayview Hospitality Group. This fact, according to its president, Al Gulamani, gives it every legal right to treat over 100 of the hotel's former workers like disposable commodities.
Unite Here Local 75, the union representing them, disagrees, arguing that the owner has violated labour law and their collective bargaining agreement by shutting down certain departments only to subcontract them out.
Employment lawyer Howard Levitt says new ownership can’t break a union agreement, especially if the nature of the business hasn’t changed.
“It doesn’t matter if the ownership changes, there’s something called successor rights in the Labour Relations Act. Employers who think that just by changing ownership they can escape the union are unfortunately deluded.”
Meanwhile, employees in other departments of the Metropolitan live in daily fear that they will be next. One of those is Rahman Aliheidari, 49, pictured above, who fears the room service department at the Metropolitan Hotel, where he works, will next:
“I have a 4-year-old daughter. When I work, I have fear. When I sleep, I have fear. You call this a stable job?”
Indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)