The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
COVID-19SaskatchewanUnions and Collective Bargaining

Saskatchewan’s Labour Laws Allow Co-op Refinery to Reject Mediators’ Recommendations, Prolong Lockout

by Ronni Nordal March 23, 2020
written by Ronni Nordal March 23, 2020

Written by Ronni Nordal, Q.C.

Unifor Canada,  Local 594 (“Unifor Local 594”) members have been locked out by their employer,  Consumer’s Co-operative Refineries Limited (“CCRL”), since December 5, 2019.  CCRL has continued to carry on its operations using replacement workers who are housed on site in a camp which the City of Regina has requested be assessed by the Saskatchewan Health Authority. 

CCRL sought regressive changes to long standing collective agreement provisions including the defined benefit pension plan; removing restrictions on management rights regarding minimum numbers of maintenance workers and doing away with the employee savings plan.  CCRL claimed these changes were required to cut costs and increase efficiency. 

As was noted in my article published on Canadian Law of Work Forum on March 11, 2020, the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan issued an injunction order limiting the ability of Unifor Local 594 to block entrance or exist from the Refinery to a maximum of 10 minutes unless the individual requested to be let through.  A complete blockade was established by Unifor Local 594, ultimately coming down after a second contempt order was issued by the Court. 

Although the Saskatchewan Employment Act does not contain a provision for binding arbitration, Unifor 594 asked the Government of Saskatchewan to order the dispute be determined by binding arbitration.

On February 12, 2020, Vince Ready and Amanda Rodgers were appointed as Special Mediators pursuant to s. 6-28 of the Saskatchewan Employment Act to “investigate, mediate and report to the minister” on the labour dispute between CCRL and Unifor Local 594.   The Saskatchewan government could have ordered that the mediators’ report was binding so as to ensure a clear end to this troubling lockout, but it opted instead to make assign the mediators only the authority to make “recommendations”.

The Report of the special mediators was released on March 19 with 10 recommendations including significant amendments to the defined benefit pension plan and removal of the minimum number of maintenance workers.[1]

On March 20, Unifor Local 594 advised it would be recommending acceptance of the Special Mediators’ recommendations in order to bring the dispute to an end. However, on March 22,  CCRL stated it was “unable to accept the special mediators’ recommendations in full” and that it “will need to make modifications out of our responsibility to our employees, our co-op owners, our customers and the broader communities that depend on the long-term sustainability of the CRC.”

After pointing to changing global economic circumstances, which clearly refers to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CCRL purports to be committed to reaching a fair deal and indicates it will be presenting an offer to Unifor Local 594 in the coming days. 

The Special Mediators specifically commented on what they saw as the cost savings effect of their recommendations: 

“Our recommendations with respect to the pension plan and operational efficiencies sought by the Employer go a long way to meeting the cost savings and efficiency targets sought by the Employer in bargaining.  Put bluntly, implementation of our recommendations would result in significant cost savings for the Employer.”

It appears that CCRL is not committed to reach a fair deal, it is committed to reaching the deal it wants and one has to question whether the deal it wants includes an ongoing relationship with Unifor Local 594. 

It is important to remember that this is not a strike, it is a lock-out, and the CCRL has been operational throughout due to there being no prohibition on the use of replacement workers in Saskatchewan. The fact that replacement workers are being housed together in a work camp during a global COVID outbreak adds a bizarre and dangerous twist to the story.  The actions Unifor Local 594 took to exert economic pressure on CCRL in order to achieve a fair collective agreement were declared illegal by the Court of Queen’s Bench.  

The ability of CCRL to continue its operations through the use of replacement workers knowing the courts will restrict any effective picketing has emboldened this employer to ignore the recommendations of Special Mediators and to continue to leave the employees it says it cares about locked-out at the same time as housing replacement workers in close quarters during the COVID-19 pandemic.  It appears the only thing CCRL cares about is getting what it wants. 

Ronni A. Nordal, “Saskatchewan’s Labour Laws Allow Co-op Refinery to Reject Mediators’ Recommendations, Prolong Lockout” Canadian Law of Work Forum (March 23 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/saskatchewans-labour-laws-allow-co-op-refinery-to-reject-mediators-recommendations-prolong-lockout/


[1] The full mediator report can be found at the bottom of the story linked here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/special-mediator-recommendations-fcl-unifor-1.5506135

0 comment
4
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Ronni Nordal

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Work Refusals and COVID-19
next post
Relaxing Restrictions on Occupational Licensing as a Response to COVID-19

You may also like

Why It’s So Hard to Unionize Starbucks in...

June 15, 2022

Trevor Bauer Suspension: Professional Sport as a Lens...

May 3, 2022

How Canadian Unions Responded to Vaccine Mandates, Protests,...

March 17, 2022

Will There Be a Strike at York?

March 11, 2022

Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for...

February 18, 2022

Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights...

February 9, 2022

Is UFCW’s Mysterious “Agreement” With Uber Lawful?

January 27, 2022

Bill 32 Regulations Continue Attack on Unions in...

January 5, 2022

Why So Quiet About Unions and Collective Bargaining?

December 16, 2021

Why Canadian Employers Do Not ‘Permanently” Replace Strikers

December 8, 2021

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 334 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
3h

Stormtroopers in their stupid useless white costumes are the absolute worst soldiers in the universe.

Reply on Twitter 1539436053114789895Retweet on Twitter 1539436053114789895Like on Twitter 15394360531147898952Twitter 1539436053114789895
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
4h

Hope there’s a Canadian equivalent coming soon.

Either Uber drivers are “employees” and Employment Laws apply, or they are each little businesses in business with Uber and Competition Law applies.

I’m no competition lawyer, but raises interesting issues https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/21/business/uber-lyft-antitrust-lawsuit.html?referringSource=articleShare

Reply on Twitter 1539420427449253889Retweet on Twitter 15394204274492538895Like on Twitter 153942042744925388912Twitter 1539420427449253889
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
8h

The old “why do teachers have to strike during the school year rather than over summer” argument.

𝖊𝖌𝖌@emmaggarland

how are people not understanding that the entire point of a strike is to be extremely inconvenient so as to make the value of your work apparent

Reply on Twitter 1539360068566716416Retweet on Twitter 15393600685667164162Like on Twitter 153936006856671641612Twitter 1539360068566716416
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.