Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Interesting Analysis of City of Toronto's Strategy in Collective Bargaining

by David Doorey April 18, 2012
written by David Doorey April 18, 2012

The Globe and Mail ran a piece this week deconstructing the last round of collective bargaining between the City of Toronto and CUPE 416, the outside workers. The angle of the story is that the City negotiating team deployed clever strategies throughout that worked like a charm in backing the union and the workers into a corner.  I followed the bargaining as it happened in my on-line Anatomy of Work Stoppage? Series.
In the end, the bargaining was influenced mostly by the unwillingness of the workers to strike or to force a lockout.  We know from history that unless workers are prepared to withstand a work stoppage, they will be hard-pressed to resist an aggressive employer’s demands for concessions.
One strategy the article notes was the employer’s effort to create separate timelines for bargaining between the outside workers (CUPE 416) and the inside workers (CUPE79).  This was accomplished by starting the bargaining process earlier with 416.  However, that strategy only worked because CUPE 79 was leaderless. Had CUPE 79 served notice to bargain at the same time the employer was serving notice on CUPE 416, and been ready to bargain and get to a strike/lockout date at the same time as CUPE 416, the bargaining would have been coordinated as it was in 2009, giving the workers more power. That was a strategic mistake by CUPE to let the employer divide the two units along different bargaining timelines.
The Globe article notes also the CIty’s strategy of threatening to unilaterally change the employees’ terms of employment rather than lockout the workers.  Here’s what the article says:

..the city had another option to force the union’s hand.
Last summer, Mr. Remtulla  (Mayor Ford’s Chief of Staff) presented the working group with research he’d done on a novel tactic that Ontario’s community colleges had deployed against unionized instructors in 2009.
If the union refused to settle, the city could simply implement its final offer. The union could either work under new terms and conditions imposed by the city, strike or buckle down and make a deal.
“It hasn’t been done [in the public sector],” Mr. Minnan-Wong said. “No one else had the balls.”

Much was made of this strategy at the time.  However, it is a really a red herring.  It is true that employers rarely deploy this strategy, and that public sector employers virtually never do. There are good reasons for that.  It rarely works as a bargaining strategy.
All the CUPE members had to do if the employer unilaterally changed their terms of employment was show up for work, then sit on their hands and do nothing, or work to rule (slow down) and collect their pay.  What would the City do then?  Presumably, lock them out. It couldn’t fire them or even discipline them for doing this, because you can’t fire an employee for engaging in a legal strike, and the workers would have been in a legal strike position.  A strike includes more than just walking off the job;  it includes any concerted effort to slow down or refuse to work.
The point is that the threat of the employer to change conditions of work rather than lockout the workers was a public relations strategy designed to make any work stoppage look like it was the union’s fault.  CUPE workers could have provoked a lockout by showing up and doing nothing, or they could have just struck.  Thus, the real issue was CUPE’s unwillingness to get involved in another work stoppage, regardless of whether it was a strike, lockout, or combination of both.
There may have been good reasons for this unwillingness, given the unpopularity of the last work stoppage in 2009.  No doubt the City administration’s threat to win concessions even if this required a long work stoppage caused the workers and CUPE leadership to doubt whether a work stoppage would ultimately prove beneficial to the workers.  In this way, Ford and his allies certainly did influence the course of negotiations.
The extent to which the new deal will save the City money remains a big question.  The City is throwing around the number $141 over 4 years, but never trust a politician on these matters. That number will depend on whether the City is able to downsize or contract out work, how much the contracting out costs, how many workers would have retired or quit regardless of the deal, and then you have to include too the money that would have been saved had the City accepted the union’s proposed zero % wage increase, rather than the employers’ 6% wage increase that ended up in the agreement.  It will take years to determine the financial impact of the latest settlement.

One lesson here is that having a right to strike means little if the workers are unprepared to exercise it.  Do you think that CUPE should have reacted any differently in this bargaining round?

 

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
On Pilot Fatigue, Planets, and Charter Challenges
next post
Watch Professor Roy Adams Talk on the Charter and Labour Rights TODAY at 10:30 a.m.

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.