CIRB Decision -
Union Leave
Published: July 31st 2015 | Source: TCRC West |
Board
Order no. 738·NB
CIRB found that the employer did breach section 94(1)(a) of the Code
Brothers & Sisters,
Please see the attached award from the
CIRB that we received today regarding Union Leave and our complaint
following our legal work stoppage. As you will read, the CIRB found that
the employer did breach section 94(1)(a) of the Code. In its decision
the Board found:
[28] The terms and conditions that existed and
applied to members of the bargaining units when the union decided to
exercise their right to strike, included the terms contained in the
parties' Interim Agreement and extended by the
Board's
Order no. 738·NB. As the parties have not reached agreement on
different terms related to union business leave, the employer is not in
a position to unilaterally make changes to those terms anymore than it
was free to do so prior to the parties acquiring the right to strike or
lockout.
[32] To accept the employer’s proposition would amount
to accepting that whatever was not agreed to during collective
bargaining can be changed unilaterally by the employer during the
mediation-arbitration process agreed to pursuant to section 79. The
Board cannot accept this proposition as this is not the effect of
section 79.
[34] In this case, the employer communicated a new
policy on union business leave without regard to the terms and
conditions that were in place as a result of the agreement reached
pursuant to section 79 and the RTWA. The Board concludes that the
employer’s letter of February 23, 2015 in which it unilaterally imposes
new conditions for the request and approval of union business leave is a
violation of section 94(1)(a) of the Code as it ignores the rights and
the obligations of the bargaining agent in its representation of
employees in what are key terms and conditions of employment.
[35] The terms of the Interim Agreement as attached to the Board's Order
no. 738-NB must from the day of this decision, continue to apply until
such time as the parties mutually agree to different terms governing
union business leave or the arbitrator imposes different terms for union
business leave. The Board’s order to this effect is attached to this
decision and supercedes the Interim Order no. 754-NB that was issued on
March 5, 2015.
Essentially, the Board found that the entire
Interim Agreement, not just paragraphs 1 & 2, is now in effect until we
agree on different terms or the Adams arbitration enacts different
conditions.
As a further update, the latest complaint regarding
managers performing bargaining unit filed April, 2015 is before a panel
of the Board for its consideration. We can expect a decision soon.
We would like to thank TCRC National office for their support and
Denis Ellickson of CaleyWray for his assistance in achieving this
successful outcome.
In Solidarity,
Dave Fulton, General
Chairman - CTY West
Greg Edwards, General Chairman - LE West
Bruce Hiller, General Chairman - CTY East
Benoit Brunet, General
Chairman - LE East
cc: Mr. Douglas Finnson, President TCRC
