December 31, 2018 at 4:00 PM
Representation Vote & January Meetings
Events like this can create uncertainty amongst employees, especially when there is misinformation about the process. Pilots have been asking us where we stand on a representation vote and why Unifor is not signing union cards similar to ALPA. Let’s take a look at these issues.
Membership and Information Meetings:
Wednesday January 16 & Wednesday January 23, 2019
Doors Open:
6:30pm
Start time:
7:00pm
Location:
Victoria Inn, 1808 Wellington Ave, Winnipeg, MB
Light refreshments will be provided. We will be providing conference call in details closer to the meeting dates, however we do encourage you if possible, to attend in person to get the full presentation.
Unifor's leadership will answer any questions you may have about:
Where does Unifor stand on a representation vote?
Unifor's position has been that the pilots should have a choice on which union they wish to represent them through a vote, and in fact through discussions with both parties’ legal counsel, ALPA is aware of this.
In good faith, Unifor agreed to a request from ALPA for an extension to file their response to the application as ALPA indicated decisions are slow to come from the U.S. leadership. Since then, ALPA has asked Unifor members to sign ALPA cards, telling them this is necessary to obtain a vote. This is simply not the truth.
Their U.S. style misinformation tactics aimed at misleading their own members and attempting to confuse Unifor members is very disappointing.
Unifor has and continues to – in spite of ALPA's insincere actions – support a representation vote to ensure pilots have a free and democratic choice.
Why is ALPA signing union cards?
We believe the signing of union cards by ALPA degrades the significance of this choice by a worker for no reason. The collection of membership cards by the unions during this process serves no purpose. The filing of cards with the Board is unnecessary and these cards will not affect how the Board handles the case. Again, we support a representation vote which will be handled by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).
ALPA is aware that the Unifor collective agreement is superior in almost every aspect and they know the pilots will consider this when they chose their union. ALPA is using card signing as a distraction from the real issues.
Conclusion
The Perimeter and Bearskin integration is a very simple and straightforward business integration that the Board will manage through the section 18.1 process (see below).
This will involve a representation vote between Unifor and ALPA that the Board will conduct, something Unifor has supported from the start.
For further information please contact
[email protected] or [email protected]
BACKGROUNDER – CIRB Process
Section 18.1 of the Canada Labour Code
Corporate changes such as the integration of one business into another usually result in the Board applying section 18.1 of the Canada Labour Code. That section deals with bargaining unit reorganizations. Section 18.1 is applied by the Board after a sale of business, or where the Board decides that two entities are acting together as a single employer, or where other changes have made an existing bargaining unit structure no longer appropriate.
When the Board decides that a section 18.1 bargaining unit review will occur, section 18.1(2) first compels the affected parties to attempt to come to an agreement about all issues. The Board expects that parties will work out resulting issues on their own. The Board has said that it will not be primarily responsible for the resolution of such issues (Air Canada (2002), 91 C.L.R.B.R. (2d) 161 (C.I.R.B.).
The Board may facilitate discussions between employers and competing unions about all issues even before the Board makes any decisions. That is something that could happen in this case. The Perimeter and Bearskin integration is very simple and straightforward. The employer, Unifor and ALPA should agree that a combined bargaining unit is appropriate, and that the Board should now conduct a representation vote between the two unions. There should be an agreement about how the Board will conduct that vote.
The collection of membership cards by the unions at this point serves no purpose. The filing of cards with the Board is unnecessary. These cards will not affect how the Board handles the case.
Board Decisions
If the Board must make orders in these cases, it does so under section 18.1(4) of the Code. That section gives the Board the power to:
-
Determine which trade union shall be the bargaining agent for the employees in each bargaining unit that results from the review;
-
Amend any certification order or description of a bargaining unit contained in any collective agreement;
-
If more than one collective agreement applies to employees in a bargaining unit, decide which collective agreement is in force;
-
Amend, to the extent that the Board considers necessary, the provisions of collective agreements respecting expiry dates or seniority rights, or amend other such provisions;
-
Authorize a party to a collective agreement to give notice to bargain collectively.
Section 18.1 bargaining unit reviews often result in a contest between unions. Under clause (a), of section 18.1(4), the Board can decide which union will represent a combined bargaining unit. This usually means a representation vote in which employees choose between the existing unions. In some rare cases, where one union is much larger than the other, the Board will simply declare the larger union to be the bargaining agent. In the case of Perimeter and Bearskin, discussions between ALPA and Unifor prior to the filing of Unifor’s application included an agreement that this is not a case in which the larger number of Unifor pilots will cause the Board to simply award the combined bargaining unit to Unifor. We agreed with ALPA that the Board will not in this case simply declare that Unifor will be the bargaining agent because its bargaining unit at Perimeter is larger than ALPA’s bargaining unit at Bearskin. There will be a vote.
Clause (b) of section 18.1(4) describes the Board’s power to determine how bargaining units may be changed or combined. This gives the Board the power to amend existing bargaining rights.
Clause (c) of s. 18.1(4) is about deciding which collective agreement will apply to a combined bargaining unit. If the Board combines the bargaining units, it should not be assumed that the Board will simply declare that one collective agreement will apply to all employees and the other would not. The Board will more likely expect the parties to negotiate to determine which collective agreement will apply and what modifications to the resulting single collective agreement will be required. While the Board in clause (d) retains the power to alter a collective agreement as required, for example to integrate seniority or to amend wage rates and classifications, the Board again would expect the parties to first attempt to negotiate such issues and would retain the power to make decisions only as a last resort.
Also available to the Board is the power under clause (f) of section 18.1(4) to permit the union that is the bargaining agent of a consolidated bargaining unit to give notice to bargain for the new bargaining unit. That might be necessary if, for example, provisions of two or more collective agreements could not be easily reconciled.
/18-12-31 Perimeter Aviation Merger Update en.txt