Latest News
| Title | Date |
|---|---|
BCGEU outlines impact for workers of Supreme Court rulingUp to 8,000 health care workers were fired by B.C. Liberals during their first term of office Vancouver (10 June 2007) - The British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union (BCGEU/NUPGE) has hailed the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that sections of Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a groundbreaking ruling extending the freedom of association provision of the Charter to include the right to free collective bargaining, the court struck down key provisions of the 2002 law that restricted and gutted the bargaining rights of health care workers. It's a decision that has widespread implications for unions across the country. BCGEU president George Heyman says that the right to free collective bargaining has been critical for the protection of public health care and decent jobs. "Workers have fought for free collective bargaining for decades," said Heyman. "This decision confirms that right is encompassed and protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be arbitrarily trampled on at the whim of government." The top court has given the B.C. Liberal government one year to bring the legislation into compliance with the Charter. Health unions led by the BCGEU, the Hospital Employees' Union (HEU) and the B.C. Nurses Union (BCNU) launched the Charter challenge in 2002. Up to 8,000 health care workers were fired in the B.C. Liberal government's first term and, as a result, facilitated the most extensive privatization of health services in Canada. Cleaning, dietary and other hospital support services in the province's largest population centres were contracted out to multinational corporations which in turn slashed wages by half causing high staff turnover and undermining service quality. The legislation has also encouraged the chronic flipping of commercial contracts between long-term care operators and their sub-contractors as they sought to undermine collective bargaining and keep wages low. Impact of ruling on BCGEU members At Windsor Manor in Kelowna, the operator of the facility used Bill 29 in August 2006 to fire 70 care givers. The employer threatened to bring in foreign workers to replace the fired staff, saying there weren't enough trained workers around. "The actions by AdvoCare (the operator at Windsor Manor) were appalling and an example of how employers used Bill 29 to fire workers and gut collective agreements," said Heyman. BCGEU Local 407 chair Bernadette Bigattini saw what happened to the workers at Windsor Manor. "Bill 29 disrupted the lives of the workers," she says. "It led to the demoralization of the staff and there are still complaints about the level of service at the Manor." In a note of caution, Heyman said the court did not find the government's scrapping of the Employment Security and Labour Adjustment (ESLA) program to be unconstitutional. This program provided employees a year of training and financial assistance if they were to be laid off. A number of BCGEU members have filed grievances on this issue and will not benefit from the broader decision of the court on Bill 29. Bill 29 deals with both the health and community social services sector. This case only dealt with the health sector, but the union has also started a second court challenge to the constitutionality of Bill 29 as it impacts workers in the social services sector. NUPGE More information:B.C. health care company fires locals to hire outside Canada |
June 9, 2007 |
Supreme Court ruling affirms labour rights are human rights'This landmark decision recognizes that collective bargaining is a right for all workers, and it affirms that labour rights are human rights.' - NUPGE President James Clancy Ottawa (8 June 2007) - The Supreme Court of Canada has declared for the first time that the collective bargaining rights of workers are protected by the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are also a fundamental aspect of Canadian society predating the Charter. The 6-1 ruling arises from a 2002 case in which the Liberal government of British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell arbitrarily cancelled the contracts of thousands of health care workers and allowed for mass layoffs outside the collective bargaining process. The top court ruled that several sections of the B.C. legislation (Bill 29) violated Section 2 of the Charter, which protects freedom of association. The court also rejected earlier Supreme Court decisions that excluded collective bargaining from the Charter’s protection saying those decisions do not withstand principled scrutiny. "We conclude that Section 2(d) of the Charter protects the capacity of members of labour unions to engage, in association, in collective bargaining on fundamental workplace issues," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louis LeBel wrote in the majority decision - issued June 8. The court further noted that collective bargaining complements, promotes and enhances fundamental Charter values such as equality and democracy: "Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms, enhances and promotes the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter," it said. Link to international treaties signed by Canada The ruling also made a notable link between Canadian rights protected by the Charter and those in international treaties signed by Canada as a member of the United Nations (UN) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). "The Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified," the justices declared. James Clancy, president of the 340,000-member National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), said the decision is one of the most important rulings for Canadian workers ever rendered by Canada's top court. "This landmark decision recognizes that collective bargaining is a human right for all workers, and it affirms that labour rights are human rights,” he said. "It is a tremendous victory for workers across Canada because it applies not only to British Columbia but to all governments at all levels. As a result we now expect governments everywhere to abide by both the letter and spirit of this ruling." Clancy said the decision also validates the campaign that the National Union has waged for many years to have labour rights recognized as human rights and to force Canadian governments to live up to the international treaties Canada has signed over the years. "This ruling should force all governments to reassess the cavalier manner in which they have violated international conventions and standards on labour rights and at long last to abide by them," he added. The case was launched by a group of B.C. labour organizations, including the B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU/NUPGE). Supreme Court Decision: Complete Text: Supreme Court of Canada decision NUPGE labour rights page More information: UN agency condemns violations by B.C. Liberals B.C. unions lose provincial court challenge B.C. unions will appeal to Supreme Court of Canada Full Text: Court of Appeal of British Columbia Background materials (B.C.) The ILO's full decision on case #2324 against the B.C. government pdf The ILO's recommendations from case #2324 against the B.C. government pdf Summary of B.C. legislation restricting collective bargaining and trade union rights pdf Statement by Ulf Edstrom of the ILO committee of freedom of association pdf |
June 7, 2007 |
Newfoundland and Labrador considering anti-scab legislationProvince would join Quebec and B.C. if it outlaws the use of strikebreakers in labour-management disputes St. John's (29 May 2007) - The Conservative government of Newfoundland and Labrador is considering anti-scab legislation. Two ministers in the provincial cabinet of Premier Danny Williams are looking into the issue, Labour Minister Shawn Skinner and Transportation and Works Minister John Hickey. The provincial New Democratic Party called last week for the province to take action in the wake of an incident involving a scab worker hired by a subcontractor at Voisey's Bay Nickel. About 120 workers with two contracting companies at the site walked off the job in mid-April. They are represented by the United Steelworkers, which is also representing direct employees of Voisey's Bay Nickel. Hickey said the government is "obviously not going to step into the middle" of any ongoing labour dispute. However, the general issue of whether scab workers ("replacements") should be outlawed is already under active consideration by the government, he told the CBC. "Minister Skinner has advised me that inside the department, this whole legislation is under review, [and] I have taken the opportunity to review other legislation across the country … so these are issues that we as a government certainly are looking at dealing with," Hickey said. Two of Canada's largest provinces, Quebec and B.C., have long had anti-scab legislation on the books. It was also passed by Ontario in the 1990s but later repealed by the pro-business administration of former Premier Mike Harris. The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has been one of the most active labour organizations in Canada in campaigning for anti-scab legislation at all levels of government. |
May 29, 2007 |
NSGEU will not participate in strike-ban talks with province'I’m not sitting down at a table to talk about giving away the rights of workers.' - Joan Jessome Halifax (21 May 2007) - The Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union (NSGEU/NUPGE) has flatly rejected the idea of negotiating with the government to find an alternative to the right to strike for health care workers. NSGEU president Joan Jessome says Premier Rodney MacDonald has been "biting at the bit" to strike back at health care workers since a one-day walkout by staff at the Izaak Walton Killam (IWK) Health Sciences Centre earlier this month. MacDonald said last week he is considering legislation to ban strikes in the health care sector. However, the solution is not to attack the rights of workers but to fix the underlying problems that led to the walkout, Jessome argues. The government bears responsibility for long waiting lists, staff shortages and aging facilities while health care staff work hard to give patients good care. "The people I represent do that," Jessome told the Halifax Herald. "Every single day, they go to work and do that. They also have a right to have the same government protect their rights too, as workers." She said she has no interest in discussing anything related to anti-strike legislation with the government. "I’m not sitting down at a table to talk about giving away the rights of workers," she said. "(The right to strike) is all they have. Government and the employers have all the other cards." CCPA offers advice Meanwhile, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) is advising against a ban on health care strikes, saying there is no magic wand available to deal the issue. CCPA researchers Judy Haiven and Larry Haiven, who also teach at the Sobey School of Business at Saint Mary’s University, say three basic approaches have been tried in other provinces. "Some, like Alberta and Ontario outlaw health care strikes. Some, like British Columbia and New Brunswick, legally specify that a proportion of workers must work during a strike. Still others, like Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, leave strikes and emergency services up to unions and employers." There are "two big problems" with an outright strike ban, the researchers warn. "First, there must be a substitute mechanism to settle bargaining disputes – usually arbitration. However, that leaves settlements to a third party and both sides are skittish about that as a permanent solution. Since 2000, when an arbitrator awarded provincial ambulance workers a (much-deserved) 20% raise, Nova Scotia governments have hesitated to enshrine arbitration," they note. "Second, outlawing strikes does not guarantee compliance. For example, Alberta allowed health care strikes until 1983, then outlawed them. Yet the threat of heavy fines and other penalties didn’t stop nurses in 1988, hospital laundry workers in 1996, and licensed practical nurses in 2000 from walking out. All three precipitated political disasters for the government when public support favoured the strikers." Learning from disaster When Ontario jailed union leaders after health support workers defied the law in 1981, a public relations disaster ensued. Nova Scotia nurses created a similar disaster for the government by threatening mass resignations in 2001, they note. "We have been studying health care labour relations for over a quarter century. Given the increasing stresses of health care work and the glaring salary disparities for many health occupations, what impresses us is how seldom strikes happen, how seriously workers take their duty to their patients and how reasonable unions are – perhaps too reasonable for the good of their members," the researchers argue. "The best way to ensure that mature labour relations continue is to accept the possibility that strikes will occasionally and briefly occur, to weather the disruption and inconvenience and to know that, given real choices, health care workers and their unions act responsibly." |
May 21, 2007 |
Weak U.S. labour laws relentlessly exploited by Wal-MartHuman Rights Watch says workers have 'virtually no chance' to organize Washington (3 May 2007) – Wal-Mart’s relentless exploitation of weak American labour laws thwarts union formation and violates the rights of its U.S. workers, says a report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW). It is the largest human rights organization based in the United States. In the 210-page report, Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart’s Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association, the group reports that while many U.S. companies use weak laws to stop workers from organizing, Wal-Mart stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus. Many of its tactics are technically lawful in the U.S., though they combine to undermine workers’ legitimate rights. Others run afoul of even the soft laws that exist on U.S. books. “Wal-Mart workers have virtually no chance to organize because they’re up against unfair U.S. labour laws and a giant company that will do just about anything to keep unions out,” says Carol Pier, senior researcher on labour rights and trade for HRW. “That one-two punch devastates workers’ right to form and join unions.” The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is supporting the drive by the United Food and Commerical Workers (UFCW Canada) to organize Wal-Mart workers in Canada. Especially troubling As the world’s largest company, Wal-Mart’s conduct is especially troubling, Human Rights Watch adds. Wal-Mart had $351.14 billion in revenue and $11.3 billion in profits in the fiscal year ending January 2007. It is the largest private U.S. employer, with more than 1.3 million U.S. workers and close to 4,000 stores nationwide. None of those workers is represented by a union. HRW says this is no accident. The group’s investigation revealed that, in most cases, Wal-Mart begins to indoctrinate workers and managers to oppose unions from the moment they are hired. Managers receive explicit instructions on keeping out unions, many of which are found in the company’s “Manager’s Toolbox,” a self-described guide to managers on “how to remain union free in the event union organizers choose your facility as their next target.” If workers try to organize, store managers must report it to Wal-Mart’s Union Hotline at headquarters. The company responds by dispatching its labour relations team immediately to squash the effort. Team members hold small- and large-group “captive audience” meetings, which workers are strongly urged to attend. Workers hear of the terrible consequences of union formation and see videos dramatizing the message. Wal-Mart envelops workers with its anti-union mantra and allows little space for union supporters and organizers to respond. Under U.S. law, it does not have to. “Employers can make their anti-union case loud and clear in the workplace, while banning union reps from company property,” says Pier. “That’s hardly a free and democratic election climate, and it would be unfair in any political contest.” NUPGE More information:• Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart's Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association• NUPGE Labour Rights Page |
May 3, 2007 |
College part-timers have rights elsewhere - why not Ontario?Update on the organizing campaign in the Ontario's 24 community colleges Toronto (18 April 2007) - Ontario part-time college workers are the only such group in Canada excluded from joining a union and bargaining collectively. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU/NUPGE) is currently engaged in a province-wide campaign to organize sessional and part-time employees and win full collective bargaining rights on their behalf. The Organization of Part-time and Sessional Employees of the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (OPSECAAT) was formed last November, shortly after the International Labour Organization (ILO) ruled that part-timers should have the same right to unionize and bargain collectively "as any other workers." Here are a few of the rights negotiated by unions for part-time college workers elsewhere in Canada: In British Columbia, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators (FPSE) began the fight in the 1990s for “regularization” of part-time employees. FPSE also has a system-wide registry of laid off faculty with rights to move from one institution to another and pro-rated employer paid health and welfare benefits, including short-term and long-term disability. In Alberta, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) Faculty Association agreement applies to “full-time and part-time salary staff members and persons in sessional employment employed by the Institute …” In Quebec, The Fédération nationale des enseignantes et enseignants du Québec (FNEEQ-CSN) includes both part-time academic and part-time support staff in their bargaining units in colleges throughout the province. In Manitoba, a “part-time employee” is someone who normally works less than the full normal daily, weekly or monthly hours, and whose work follows an ongoing, predetermined schedule. Once requirements for hours of accumulated service are met, part-time workers are included alongside full-timers as members of the bargaining unit. In universities and colleges all over Canada, unions are able to represent their part-time members. Last fall, the ILO ruled that Ontario should allow part time college workers to bargain “as any other workers.” However, the Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty has yet to act. OPSECAAT looks forward to the day when they can sit down at the table with the employer to negotiate terms and conditions for part-timers throughout Ontario colleges. OPSEU says that day is fast approaching. NUPGE |
April 21, 2007 |
NUPGE condemns back-to-work legislation in CN dispute'This action was unnecessary. The collective bargaining process was not given a chance to work.' - James Clancy Ottawa (19 April 2007) - Once again, Canada's MPs acted all too rashly in crushing the rights of workers and violating international obligations the country has undertaken to uphold, says the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE). "How many times is this going to happen?" asks James Clancy, president of the 340,000-member union. "This action was unnecessary. The collective bargaining process was not given a fair chance to work," Clancy said. "Again our elected members took the easy way out by simply trampling legitimate labour and human rights that Canada has pledged to respect." CN Rail workers were ordered back to work Tuesday night by a vote approved 196 to 41 in the House of Commons. Only the New Democratic Party voted against the measure, introduced by the Harper Conservatives. Members of the United Transportation Union (UTU), which represents 2,800 yard workers and conductors, are affected by the bill. Clancy said Canada continues to routinely violate international conventions and treaties that our governments have signed over the years with the United Nations (UN) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). "Canada's 'new government' is behaving in the same old discredited way governments have in the past," Clancy said. "In the last 25 years, governments at all levels in Canada have intervened repeatedly and unnecessarily in legitimate labour disputes," he noted. "This makes a mockery of Canada's signature internationally. The Harper Conservatives are behaving no better than the Liberals did." NUPGE More information: Back to work legislation violates Canada's international obligations Summary of restrictive labour laws in Canada since 1982 - pdf NUPGE Labour Rights Page NDP Leader Jack Layton signs The Workers' Bill of Rights BQ leader Gilles Duceppe signs The Workers' Bill or Rights Canada's human rights deficit - freedom of association |
April 18, 2007 |
ILO condemns Quebec for imposing Bill 142 on 500,000 workers; 2005 law violates international labour standardsThe International Labour Organization (ILO) has condemned the Quebec government of Premier Jean Charest for imposing a seven-year contract on 500,000 public sector workers. Geneva (4 April 2007) - The Geneva-based agency has called on the province to make sweeping changes to Bill 142 - legislation passed by the government in late 2005 - bringing it into conformity with international labour conventions adopted by Canada as a member of the ILO and the United Nations. Quebec labour leaders Henri Massé (FTQ), Claudette Carbonneau (CSN) and Réjean Parent (CSQ). Specifically, the ILO found that Bill 142 (now known as Law 43) contravenes the right of all Canadian workers to bargain collectively and to withdraw their services if necessary during negotiations with employers. The legislation forced most Quebec public sector workers to accept a 33-month wage freeze, followed by minor annual increases of 2% - substantially less than the projected annual rate of inflation. "I cannot recall in Canadian history another instance when a single piece of legislation imposed a contract for such an extended period of time," James Clancy, president of the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) said at the time. He estimated that the ultimate impact of the legislation would be to enforce a real wage decline (discounted for inflation) of about 6% over the full period. The ILO says the violations are so profound that the province should take action immediately to modify the impact of the bill on public sector workers. The decision was made in response to a complaint on behalf of a long list of unions and labour groups.The groups included the following: Association des substituts du Procureur général du Québec (ASPGQ) Syndicat de professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec (SPGQ) Association des juristes de l'État (AJE) Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN) Fédération des infirmières et des infirmiers du Québec (FIIQ) Fédération autonome du Collégial (FAC) Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ) Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) Centrale des syndicats démocratiques (CSD) Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec (SFPQ) Syndicat des professeurs de l'État du Québec (SPEQ) Association provinciale des enseignantes et enseignants du Québec (APEQ) The FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ called a news conference to challenge Quebec's new minority government, elected last week, to join with opposition parties to implement the ILO's recommendations. It was the second time in a year that the ILO has issued a decision condemning the actions of the Charest government. Previously, it publicly chastised the government for passing Laws 7 and 8 affecting approximately 25,000 family services workers. The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has played a leading role in the campaign to persuade Canadian governments at all levels to live up to the human and labour rights commitments they have made to international bodies. NUPGE More information: James Clancy - Quebec government violated basic human rights NUPGE labour rights page |
April 3, 2007 |
NSGEU demands fair treatment for casual public employeesDemonstration at legislature includes one 'causal' worker with 31 years of service Halifax (23 March 2007) - Joan Jessome, president of the Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union (NSGEU/NUPGE), is calling on the province to make legislative changes allowing casual workers with continuous service to be recognized as employees and receive fair wages and benefits. Jessome joined non-unionized casuals from the natural resources department at the Nova Scotia Legislature this week to lobby provincial politicians. Casual workers staff provincial parks, work as fire crew members and conservation officers and perform other job duties. They are denied wages and benefits on par with other government workers. “Many of these casuals have worked continuously with the province of Nova Scotia for many years," Jessome said. "They bring extensive knowledge and experience to the department and contribute to their communities. Yet, they are treated as second-class workers.” Recognition long overdue Jessome says NSGEU has been lobbying the province for years to amend the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act to allow casual workers with continuous temporary or seasonal employment to be recognized fully as employees. All other provinces, except New Brunswick and Newfoundland, recognize such workers as employees. “One of the workers I spoke to has 31 years of continuous service with the department of natural resources,” says Jessome. “When she started her job, she made $7.92 (an hour). I was shocked to learn that she is now only bringing home $9.06 an hour. As a casual worker, she also can’t contribute to the government pension plan or receive health benefits. It’s incredibly unfair treatment that has gone on for far too long.” Jessome applauded casual workers for visiting the legislature and speaking to elected officials about their situation. “These workers are not unionized - they have no job security or protection,” says Jessome. “I think their presence speaks volumes about their level of frustration and the need for immediate government action.” |
March 23, 2007 |
Majority of MPs side with business in anti-scab vote'They might as well rename the federal labour department the Ministry of Business.' - James Clancy Ottawa (22 March 2007) - The defeat of federal anti-scab legislation (Bill C-257) is another example of politicians putting the interests of business ahead of working people, says James Clancy, president of the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE). "The scare tactics that were used to defeat this bill were completely unjustified," Clancy said. "Really, this was a small, painless piece of legislation that would not have resulted in any of the frightening scenarios invoked by big business lobbyists to convince MPs to defeat it. In fact, it would have improved labour-management relations nationally by creating a better balance between employers and employees," Clancy argued. Recorded Vote in Commons Clancy said the positive way that anti-scab legislation has worked over the years in two of Canada's biggest provinces - Quebec and British Columbia - is all the proof politicians should have needed to pass C-257. Caving in to big business lobbyists "If big business and anti-labour premiers like Jean Charest in Quebec and Gordon Campbell in B.C., don't have any problem with anti-scab legislation, there is certainly nothing to fear by politicians in Ottawa. They just caved in to big business lobbyists once again," he added. "As this week's budget shows once again, when business barks, Ottawa jumps," he said. "As far as working Canadians are concerned, they might as well rename the federal labour department the 'Ministry of Business' and be done with it," he added. Clancy said the setback will force the labour movement to regroup and start over again. "We've done it before and we will do it again. One day anti-scab legislation will be passed by Parliament." Bill C-257 was defeated 177-124 at third reading in the Commons Wednesday. The Liberal Party, which had voted for the bill previously, withdrew its formal support following second reading. Clancy extended his thanks and appreciation to MPs who resisted heavy pressure from business lobbyists and voted in favour of the bill. The list included all NDP and Bloc MPs, plus a significant minority of Liberals. The latter group voted for the bill despite the formal opposition of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion. NUPGE More information:• Liberal party withdraws support for Bill C-257• Tories drag out anti-scab hearings at committee• Corporate Canada's last desperate push to stop C-257• Anti-scab vote a landmark moment for Canadian workers• Anti-scab legislation a victory for workers' rights in Canada• What's good for Quebec and B.C. is good for Canada• NUPGE president James Clancy says it's time for Parliament to act• Labour Day Launch for final bid to win anti-scab law• NUPGE's labour rights page |
March 22, 2007 |
Pages
Take Action
Draft a resolution
Draft and sponsor a resolution to your Federation of Labour or Labour Council condemning the use of labour laws that restrict or deny the fundamental rights of workers and proposing that progressive labour law reform be a central focus of labour’s political agenda.
Sign the Workers’ Bill of Rights
Since 2006, thousands, including all Federal Leaders of the Opposition, have signed a pledge to uphold workers rights.