CPR
Negotiations News
May
1, 2007
Brothers and Sisters,
As stated in the attached
letter, the Minister of Labour appointed Bill Lewis
as mediator to help us with our dispute, following the mandatory
60 day conciliation period. Mr. Lewis is the Regional Director
of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation services and has over
25 years experience as a professional mediator. I have included
section 105 (1&2) from Part I of the Canada Labour Code following
this message, for your information.
The talks have broken down (hopefully on a temporary basis) and
we are in position to serve 72 hour strike notice. Though we have
not served notice at this point, that could change at any time
and we would then advise you accordingly.
I also expect to be speaking with Mr. Lewis later this week.
Although there are many issues at the table, including safety,
expenses, seniority, assembly points, etc., one of the main disputes
at the table is the company's refusal to bargain outside of what
they call their "pattern".
In 2005, CPR negotiated an agreement with the IBEW (signals) which
allowed an increase in wages of 3% for 2007, 4% for 2008 with
the co-pay provision (employees will be responsible for 10% of
all Dental and Health & Vision premiums) and 3% for 2009.
In 2006 they had the Steelworkers and the Dispatchers sign for
the same (though the dispatchers did not sign for co-pay but instead
took an increase in their deductible). CPR now claims that this
is the industry, and internal, standard (pattern) and that we
will have to accept it.
The signals were not in a very good bargaining position, with
an ineffectual negotiator and had not even applied for conciliation
as they reached settlement. When they signed, CPR's profits for
the whole of 2005 had not been announced (as it turned out, they
were the highest profits the company had ever recorded).
The contract barely ratified (the ballots were counted by the
IBEW officers who negotiated the contract) and the chief negotiator
has since been defeated at election and is no longer a Union officer,
which I believe shows how much faith his membership had in him.
When the company presented the 'pattern' to the Steelworkers,
they accepted it without conciliation and well prior to the expiration
of their current agreement.
This has created a huge hurdle for us and the expectation from
CP that they will get the same from the TCRC MWED.
In 2006, CPRail announced that they increased their record profits
of 2005 once again, this time by 47%!! As you are aware, when
we are negotiating wages many factors come into play. Both parties
(should) examine, but not be limited to:
*
The work performed by the bargaining unit, including hardship, increases
in responsibility and training, etc.
*
The projected CPI (consumer price index) which factors cost of living.
*
Settlements in similar bargaining units & industry.
*
most importantly, the viability and profits of the company.
I
say that the last point is the most important, because on all three
of the previous CPR settlements which I was a part of, that was
the company's main argument. They would say that their debt load
to CP limited was too high. That their profits were not high enough
to sustain a good increase in wages. They pled poverty and kept
our wages down. Now that there is no way that they can claim they
do not have the money, they ignore their profits as a deciding factor
and rely solely on "...its the pattern."
Well, no member of the TCRC MWED voted to ratify that pattern. And
the CIRB granted the TCRC MWED certification as the recognized bargaining
agent for our membership.
We have the right by law, to negotiate on your behalf.
We didn't bargain the pattern and you didn't vote for it. Actually,
you overwhelmingly voted against it when 80% of the returned strike
vote ballots were in favour of a strike rather than accepting the
"pattern".
We are not asking for a proper wage increase just to simply break
the "pattern". We deserve a proper wage increase.
The inequity between the bargaining units at CPRail is huge, with
us at the bottom. And the distance gets greater with each contract
settled on the "pattern", making the historic relationship
even more distorted by time.
Our jobs, due to cutbacks and increased responsibility as well as
the expanded rules, have become much more complex and demanding
than they have ever been in the past.
We work in all environments and conditions and at all hours. Our
work is not only complex, it is physically exhausting.
Other workers have 4% in 2007 and 2008, including the Engineers,
signals and M of W at CN. And they do not have co-pay.
As well, CPRail's profits are higher than they have ever been.
The only argument concerning their "pattern" which I believe
is reasonable and can agree with, is that because of CPR's use of
"pattern bargaining" we can no longer afford to let weak
Unions bargain prior to us. And the best thing for all of rail labour
is to have one company, one Union....TEAMSTERS!
In their March 23rd document (their official position) the company
still requires that they get the right to choose our assembly points
for work. This could mean hours of excess travel for service area
employees as well as TP&E. They want regional crews across the
country and flexibility in seniority territories. Both of these
by themselves are strike issues. Not to mention that our clothing,
travel time, BTMF truck, mileage, expense issues etc., are not even
addressed in this document.
Ours was the last document exchanged and even though we have had
good discussion on the above issues and more, they have not sent
a response.
Rank and file members from all Unions are watching our struggle
this year. They call constantly with their support. And they are
seeing that for us to get a good contract for our membership, we
have to fight... and that we are willing to do just that. They realize
that even as their contracts hurt us, our contract has the potential
of helping them... helping all of rail labour.
Brothers and Sisters, we did not ask for this fight. We are not
demanding anything unreasonable. We are only trying to get a fair
and equitable contract, which will improve our quality of life,
in and out of the workplace. We want a negotiated settlement, we
are willing to bargain.
But just as we are not asking for anything unreasonable, you can
trust that we will not accept anything that is unreasonable towards
our membership. So even though we did not ask for the fight, we
will fight it if we must.
Do I believe that a negotiated settlement is still possible? Yes,
or we would have already served notice. But unless the company begins
to show more flexibility in their position, that belief will fade.
I realize that many of you are itching to serve notice right now,
for a variety of reasons. I ask that you be patient. I want to avoid
a strike, if at all possible. If and when notice is served, it will
be as a last resort.
The three previous contracts that I was involved in negotiating
were not easy, either. And we were dealing with professional, experienced
negotiators. CPRail management like Mike DeGirolamo, Steve Samosinski
and Don Brazier were men who understood the need to find a way to
achieve the art of the possible. Men who understood our collective
agreement and its application and we were able to achieve settlements
without a strike. Perhaps that spirit will show itself in the company
again.
I will keep you apprised of any developments. Stay focused on your
safety for now.
Stay safe, stay strong, stay united.
Bill Brehl
President
TCRCMWED
Mediators
105. (1) The Minister, on request or on the Minister’s own
initiative, may, where the Minister deems it expedient, at any time
appoint a mediator to confer with the parties to a dispute or difference
and endeavour to assist them in settling the dispute or difference.
Recommendations
(2) At the request of the parties or the Minister, a mediator appointed
pursuant to subsection (1) may make recommendations for settlement
of the dispute or the difference.
R.S.,
1985, c. L-2, s. 105; 1998, c. 26, s. 48; 1999, c. 31, s. 160(E);
2000, c. 20, s. 24(E
|
