180

Strike 'Ends Unpaid Work' As Union Reaches Deal With Air Canada (therover.ca)

submitted 4 days ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

By resisting the back-to-work order, each union member faced fines of up to $1,000 a day. Since a tentative deal has been reached, this could tilt the scales towards unions who disregard federal use of Section 107.

Yesterday, Mark Hancock, CUPE’s national president, stood in front of dozens of reporters outside Toronto-Pearson airport, undeterred.

“If it means folks like me going to jail, so be it. If it means our union being fined, then so be it,” he said. Hancock insisted he does not believe the government’s order will survive a court challenge, which could take up to 10 years to go through the legal system — and now that a tentative deal has been made it is unclear whether charges will be pursued.

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 52 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Finally a « media » that say what we already know :

Every single one of these [27] workers, expressed a common belief that Air Canada had been in contact with the CIRB before the strike was declared, and that the government was prepared to intervene prior to the strike commencing. The union itself has not endorsed this view, noting it remains unverified. […]

Michael Rousseau, the CEO of Air Canada seemed to be completely blindsided. “We thought, obviously, Section 107 would be enforced, and that they wouldn’t illegally avoid (it),” he said in an interview with Bloomberg. In the interview, he admitted that he had made no provisions for the passengers who are currently stranded. […]

Canadian law provides that any individuals who are stranded in the event of a strike are owed a fully paid flight back on another airline, regardless of whether they have an inter-airline agreement or not. It is encouraged by experts to refuse any offer of a refund, since other airlines have exponentially increased their prices to take advantage of consumers who don’t know their legal rights. […]

[-] threeonefour@piefed.ca 58 points 3 days ago

The CEO openly admitting he didn't have any plans in place for if the workers went on strike because he figured the government wouldn't allow them to is mind blowing.

[-] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 25 points 3 days ago

This should be enough to call for his resignation and Patty Hadju’s.

[-] mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

That sounds wildly illegal. Like talk about bargaining in bad faith.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 35 points 3 days ago

By resisting the back-to-work order, each union member faced fines of up to $1,000 a day.

That is insanely fucked up. Like how the hell is something like this even on the books? Don't answer that.

[-] chocrates@piefed.world 11 points 3 days ago

Essential workers probably. Not saying it's good or just but the public has an interest in having things like Drs and nurses around.

Just a guess and this is a US perspective so I'd be curious the real answer

[-] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You are correct, full strikes by essential workers are considered illegal. Back in 2005, the teachers union in BC got in trouble for a similar situation where they continued a strike after being ordered back to work and were considered on an "illegal" strike because they are essential workers.

The union was fined $500,000 and told not to pay strike pay. However, after the strike (which ended favourably for the teachers), the union took the gov all the way up to the supreme court and they won, so I doubt that any fines placed in this case would hold up.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

"Essential workers" is apparently a euphemism for "slaves."

[-] CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 days ago

It can make sense for people like doctors, whose absence would lead to huge, immediate deaths .

But the government seems to mean "mildly inconvenience" when they say essential.

In my opinion, if the government deems a group essential, they workers should immediately get a huge bonus, at the cost of the company, to equally apply pressure, something like everything the striking members are asking for (unless it's patently absurd)

[-] mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

Yeah, if you're considered too essential to strike, then your employer should be bending over backwards to ensure you're not even considering it.

Otherwise the label "essential" becomes a weapon to use against you if all it means is the government can side with your employer to force you back to work—if I'm an employer, why would I even bother negotiating in good faith if I had that in my back pocket?

It almost worked, too, if not for some serious guts on the part of the workers and their union.