|
By Tom Fuller, AUPE Staff Government lawyers have used legal technicalities to prevent provincial government workers from presenting their contract proposals before a compulsory arbitration board created under the government’s own legislation. Members of AUPE Local 10 appeared July 21 at an interest arbitration hearing they hoped would bring them their first wage increase in 8 years. According to Local 10 Chair Larry Connell, what happened next was astonishing: "When we finally got to arbitration last week, after two years of negotiating, stalling, and legal wrangling, Government counsel surprised us with a bit of ‘legal trickery’ to deny us the right even to make our case." The technicality involves the union’s right to present arguments calling for changes to the salary schedules contained in the collective agreement. This preliminary objection is purely procedural – it has no bearing on the actual wage levels the union is seeking. Connell believes the employer’s tactics reveal a fundamental flaw in the process of binding arbitration: "This employer knew we intended to argue for pay grades and salary adjustments ever since bargaining began over two years ago. It’s the heart of our case. Instead of raising an objection before now, they waited until the arbitration board convened, to stop us from getting a fair hearing." "It certainly makes one lesson clear. Had we gone on strike, we likely would have had a collective agreement by now. Instead we chose binding arbitration, the ‘legal’ alternative, only to find the door slammed in our faces." AUPE says it will be going to the Labour Relations Board to seek a clarification that will allow Local 10 to present its pay demands in the form it chooses to the board of arbitration.
|
