Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Ontario labour board upholds union’s complaint about ‘secret arrangement’

The Ontario government deliberately misrepresented a contract settlement with its largest public-sector union by awarding employees an additional one-per-cent wage increase as part of a “secret arrangement” to keep labour costs down, the province’s labour board has ruled.

The union that filed a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, accusing the government of bargaining in bad faith, is seeking the same 1-per-cent across-the-board top-up for its 12,000 members – compensation that could cost the government millions of dollars if awarded. The board’s ruling raises questions about whether other public-sector unions could make similar claims for financial restitution, say labour lawyers.

The government plans to seek a judicial review of the ruling, handed down on Monday. In a statement, Government Services Minister Harinder Takhar said any penalty or financial compensation must be determined at future labour board hearings.

“We will continue to make strong arguments to the [board] to try to prevent that from happening,” he said.

The case involves an agreement between the government and 38,000 members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. As first reported by The Globe and Mail, documents entered at a hearing before the labour board last May reveal the “adjustment” of 1 per cent on top of a scheduled wage increase of 2 per cent for this year, in exchange for non-wage concessions.

The matter came to light because the union that represents professional and supervisory public servants filed the complaint, accusing the government of bargaining in bad faith. The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario, or AMAPCEO, said it relied on the public portion of the OPSEU agreement as an important benchmark in negotiating its own wage deal in early 2009. The union only learned of the secret deal with OPSEU after the fact.

“We’re pleased that we’ve been vindicated, and pleased that this sad chapter in Ontario labour relations has been exposed,” Gary Gannage, president of AMAPCEO, said in an interview. “We pursued this case because of our strong belief that honesty and integrity are the foundation of effective labour relations.”

AMAPCEO will be back at the bargaining table with the government when its current contract expires on March 31.

In upholding the union’s complaint, labour board vice-chairwoman Diane Gee says in her 22-page decision that the government sought to influence the outcome of wage talks with AMAPCEO by not disclosing that it had awarded the extra 1 per cent pay to OPSEU. The government recognized that the top-up pay would have to be disclosed eventually, the decision says. But by waiting until after the talks concluded with AMAPCEO, the government could get the union to lower its expectations and demands at the bargaining table, the decision says. This saved the government money because other unions also ended up settling for less.

“I find the employer’s conduct in the circumstances to amount to a deliberate misrepresentation,” Ms. Gee says.

A labour lawyer said the case is very unusual, adding he does not think “this sort of thing” has ever been the subject of a board decision before.

Original Article
Source: Globe 
Author: Karen Howlett AND James Bradshaw  

No comments:

Post a Comment