September 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM
Last month we presented a tentative agreement to
the membership for approval. After a series of ratification meetings across the
country the agreement was rejected. During the ratification process the members
highlighted several areas of concern relative to the contents of the tentative
agreement. Subsequent to the agreement being rejected the bargaining committee
notified the employer and demanded that they return to the bargaining table.
The bargaining committee representatives from each
district arranged a series of meetings that were held at bases where the
bargaining committee rep from that base and local base elected leadership met
with Bob Orr – CAW Assistant to Ken Lewenza and Ron Smith – CAW’s Director of
Transportation. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the tentative
agreement and identify the areas of concern that the membership at each base
had. It also gave the CAW National and bargaining committee representatives the
opportunity to talk about some of the discussions at the bargaining table and
how we ended up with the agreement we presented. We took the comments made at
those meetings, along with the issues raised at each ratification meeting, and
formed an agenda for discussions with the employer.
Over the past few days your bargaining committee
negotiated with the employer in an effort to improve upon the tentative
agreement that was rejected by the membership. We have clearly communicated to
the employer the areas of concern raised by the membership. There were certainly
some issues more important than others in the membership based on individual
preference. But clearly there were not just one or two issues to resolve.
Your bargaining committee made it very clear during
the ratification process that negotiating changes to the tentative agreement
would be extremely difficult and demands for substantial changes would be
resisted by the employer. During the opening of negotiations the company tabled
a very aggressive and regressive agenda. The company withdrew the majority of
their proposals as a result of the solidarity shown by the membership.
As we reconvened negotiations we tabled a number of
issues that needed to be amended in an effort to reach a bargained settlement
that would be supported by the bargaining committee. Our agenda was based on the
issues raised by the membership. The most contentious issues were additional
money, the ten-hour shifts for Toronto, base closure and bumping issues for
London and throughout the system including VSP (voluntary separation program)
and relocation issues for all those affected as a result of the London closure,
etc... The employer was clear that they were not going to restart bargaining
process from day one. If we wanted major changes we would have to pay for it by
giving back some of the gains attained in the tentative agreement. There were a
number of issues resolved over the past few days.
We had lengthy discussions with the employer on
reaching a settlement that would be ratified by the membership. However Jazz was
not ready to provide new monetary gains and the CAW was not prepared to remove
the ten-hour shifts in Toronto by the membership paying a heavy price.
The bargaining committee made a unanimous decision
that we were not going to agree to the far reaching concessions the employer had
tabled on day one of bargaining. Further, we were not going to provide Jazz a
mechanism to retable their massive concessions.
During the ratification process we discussed our
desire to stay out of the federal conciliation system. Jazz made it clear that
they were not going to let this drag on and if an agreement was not reached they
would file for conciliation under the Canada Labour Code with Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Services (FMCS). As a result of the employer’s refusal to table
new money and eliminate the ten-hour shift in Toronto for twenty individuals. On
that basis we could not bargain an agreement that we felt the membership would
ratify.
As a result of the company’s position, we were left
with two options: to enter into the FMCS system or find an alternative dispute
mechanism. We are not about to go down the road of being legislated to go to
arbitration as has occurred five times in the past fifteen months. We do not
want a final offer selection forced upon us. ACPA pilots had a tentative
agreement that was ripped apart by an arbitrator; CUPW Postal Workers were
ordered to receive less pay than was originally on the bargaining table. Look at
the situation of the teachers in Ontario this week where their right to
collective bargaining was legislated away.
Mediation: The
Next Step
As a result of reaching an impasse with the
employer, the parties agreed to enter into a consensual mediation arbitration
process. An experienced Federal Mediator/Arbitrator, Tom Hodges has been agreed
to by both parties and a hearing will be held on September 24, 2012. The issues
in dispute are the ten hour shift schedule in Toronto, additional monetary
compensation, some shift issues in the heavy bases. The Arbitrator will attempt
to assist the parties to reach an agreement. If the event an agreement cannot be
reached, the Arbitrator has the ability to order a final and binding settlement.
Shift and
vacation bid delayed
Jazz and CAW have agreed to delay the shift bid and
vacation bid as several provisions of the tentative agreement affect the bidding
in the entire system.
Why Consensual
Mediation vs. Federal Dispute Mechanism?
In the Federal system the terms of reference of the
arbitration award is ordered by the Federal government (i.e. the Tories). They
do not include workers issues. The arbitrator is told to do what is best for the
Company (i.e. Jazz) and that could not be clearer than in the Pilot’s
arbitration. We are not interested in going down that road. We are not going to
let the agreement sit for a year or longer. No one knows what the future holds
and there can be game changing events that could radically affect the outcome of
the arbitration, including the stripping of issues that were agreed to at the
bargaining table. The CAW agreed to a similar process at Air Canada prior to
legislation being enacted and we were successful in convincing the arbitrator to
rule in our favour.
We are going to enter the arbitration process and
attempt one final time to reach a negotiated settlement with the employer. If
that is not possible the arbitrator will rule on the issues in dispute and order
a binding settlement on the parties.
Ron Smith
Director of Transportation
CAW
Canada
Click here to view the September
2012 Jazz Technical Services amendments (PDF)
/12-09-16 Jazz Tech amendments HTML en.txt