Reference no: EM134011516

Question

Just before Christmas on December 20, 2016, American-based D-J Composites, an aerospace firm, locked out approximately 30 employees in Gander. These employees were represented by their union, Unifor, Local 597. The main reasons of contention between the parties related to wages and job security. There was even media discussion that the employer was seeking wage concessions, as well as reductions in the union-seniority provisions. At the time of the labour dispute, the pay level for D-J Composites workers was about $16.50 an hour relative to the national average of $35 for Unifor members employed in the aerospace sector.

The relationship between the parties was contentious. On two occasions, the employer was found to have engaged in unfair labour practices and bad faith bargaining by the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board. In media stories, the union referenced that the employer was union-busting.

In October 2017, about 10 months into the strike, the parties were making very little headway toward a settlement. While conciliation had been provided to the parties since August, the government announced the appointment of an independent mediator following a request from the union. Despite these third-party interventions, the dispute continued with still little progress toward an end In July 2018, about 80 weeks into the strike, the workers learned that they were eligible for additional financial benefits. While unusual, the Employment Insurance (EI) Commission ruled the employees locked out were eligible for EI as the D-J Composites lockout did not meet the definition of a lockout under EI regulations. Workers were pleased with this decision as they were only earning about $250 a week in strike pay. While many locked-out employees had secured part-time employment in the community to bolster their financial situation during the dispute, the addition of EI payments provided some extra security for workers who had struggled financially, could not make mortgage payments, were borrowing money to sustain themselves and their families, and so on.

The interactions between striking employees and replacement workers and managers received considerable media attention. Media stories noted that employees on the picket line were swearing and threatening to hurt non-union employees (including managers), as well as calling replacement workers "scabs". The workers had been on the picket line for two full winters and had faced the Newfoundland elements for more than 600 days. As summer ended in 2018, shortly after the Labour Day weekend and about 21 months into the strike, tensions between employees on the picket line and replacement workers hit an all-time high. The union launched a video via its social media platforms titled "Meet the Scabs". This video showed the names and photos of replacement workers. Public and media reaction was swift. Some criticized the union's decision, feeling the video was akin to bullying or harassment. Others noted the purpose of a picket line was to prevent replacement workers, and that the Supreme Court had ruled back in 2013, the constitutional right of unions to broadcast photos of strike breakers. In media reports, the union noted the video was a necessary tactic in attempting to end the dispute.

Between February and September 2018, when the union launched the scab video, the union had written three letters to the premier regarding the dispute. In October 2018, the 21-month-old lockout was receiving increased political attention. The office of the Newfoundland and Labrador premier, Dwight Ball, informed Unifor that the employer had agreed to binding arbitration as a way to settle the strike. In fact, after the meeting with the National President of Unifor, the premier noted the potential of reconvening legislature before the fall sitting to pass legislation to force the parties into binding arbitration. This development was not celebrated by all. The NL Employers' Council raised concerns about the unprecedented potential of legislation to force a private sector union and employer to accept binding arbitration to settle a labour dispute.

In late November, the parties learned of the arbitrator's decision. Workers were expected to return to work by December 13, 2018.

1. Do you agree with NL Employer's Council's concern regarding the potential of government legislation mandating binding arbitration in a private sector dispute? Why or why not?

2. Do you agree with NL issues concerning picket lines and replacement workers evoking strong reactions from people? Do you agree with Unifor's decision to create and release a video concerning scab workers?