BCLRB No. B276/2007
CONCLUSION
AHC remains the exclusive bargaining agent on behalf of the poly-party. CHC is right to comply with its directions regarding appropriate affiliate unions. However, AHC maintains its exclusive bargaining rights on behalf of its constituents, not the individual members or craft locals that comprise its constituents. BCPC was a constituent of the AHC. CMAW Local 2300 is a constituent of AHC. The certification provides CMAW Local 2300 with membership in the AHC and the Collective Agreement entitles CMAW Local 2300 to exercise all of the dispatch and clearance responsibilities as the appropriate affiliate union of the AHC. There are no other affiliate carpenter unions pertaining to the craft in the AHC at present. Accordingly, I declare that AHC must direct CHC to contact CMAW Local 2300 with respect to the dispatch of carpenters to work on the Revelstoke 5 Project.
LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Ritu N. Mahil
VICE-CHAIR
Friday, December 21, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
CMAW Carpenters Good, UBCJA Carpenters Bad, according to Peter Kiewit
One of the world’s largest construction companies has complained that they can’t get qualified carpenters dispatched from the UBCJA local to work on the Revelstoke Dam.
Peter Kiewit Sons has written to the Labour Relations Board saying they know that the qualified carpenters they need are members of CMAW. Peter Kiewit’s lawyers have asked for intervenor status at a board hearing set for Dec. 11 in an attempt to get the qualified CMAW carpenters they need.
Peter Kiewit Sons has written to the Labour Relations Board saying they know that the qualified carpenters they need are members of CMAW. Peter Kiewit’s lawyers have asked for intervenor status at a board hearing set for Dec. 11 in an attempt to get the qualified CMAW carpenters they need.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
CHC-AHC: putting the DIS in dispatch!
Welcome to CHC-AHC, a meeting place to discuss the disarray and ineptitude of the decisions taken on behalf of the union workers in the Columbia Valley hydro projects. This is an unbiased site, just like the AHC board: write on brothers and sisters.
LRB Decison 16 October 2007
"CMAW replace(s) BCPC in the AHC Certification"
BRITISH COLUMBIA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD excerpt:
read the full decision as a PDF download
DECISION OF THE BOARD
BCLRB No. B235/2007
(Leave for Reconsideration of BCLRB No. B44/2007)
- 17 - BCLRB No. B235/2007
79 Those opposed to the application argue, in essence, that a difference of opinion and approach concerning organization and representation of employees in the unionized construction sector between CMAW and other members of the AHC has led to such “animosity” between CMAW and those members that “forcing” CMAW on the AHC risks destabilizing the poly-party, leading to industrial instability, contrary to Code principles. Those who espouse this argument admit that it is speculative, but argue that the Board should not risk, in effect, “upsetting the apple cart” that is the AHC.
80 We are sensitive to the risk of upsetting the proper and effective functioning of the AHC. We appreciate the point that such voluntarily formed poly-party entities are an important part of the labour relations landscape, particularly in the construction industry. In that context they provide a mechanism by which craft unions could deal with some of the challenges facing the sector. However, at the same time we find the risk of industrial instability said to flow from allowing the addition of CMAW to be speculative and overblown. CMAW has clearly stated that it recognizes it would be bound by the AHC constitution and bargaining structure if its application to replace BCPC is allowed.
81 We also note that CMAW actively participated with the Bargaining Council of British Columbia Building Trades Unions (“BCBCBTU”) in the last round of collective bargaining with the Construction Labour Relations Association (“CLR”) through which an industry-wide settlement was reached. BCBCBTU is a council of 15 craft unions (many of which are also members of AHC) created under Section 41 of the Code to bargain on a multi-trade, multi-employer basis. CLR represents construction contractors who have a collective bargaining relationship with one or more of those building trades unions.
82 While the other constituent members of AHC may be unhappy to have CMAW as a member of AHC, both the context of the building trades sector as well as the fact that employees have voted to have CMAW replace BCPC as a means of dealing with challenges facing the sector must be recognized: see paras. 72-77 above. In these circumstances, we are not persuaded that the differences of opinion and approach between CMAW and other members of AHC are valid reasons to bar CMAW from replacing BCPC in the AHC. Constituent members of a poly-party union are not required to like one another or to agree with one another’s views on all topics; they are required to work together in a way which is ultimately not self-defeating but rather is for the greater good – that is for the good of the employees which they collectively represent.
83 In the circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to deny CMAW and BCPC’s application. The application reflects the wishes of employees who voted to have CMAW represent BCPC as their bargaining agent in order to deal with the challenges in the construction industry. In order not to unduly restrict the option CMAW
- 18 - BCLRB No. B235/2007
represents, we grant the application to have CMAW replace BCPC in the AHC Certification.
BRITISH COLUMBIA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD excerpt:
read the full decision as a PDF download
DECISION OF THE BOARD
BCLRB No. B235/2007
(Leave for Reconsideration of BCLRB No. B44/2007)
- 17 - BCLRB No. B235/2007
79 Those opposed to the application argue, in essence, that a difference of opinion and approach concerning organization and representation of employees in the unionized construction sector between CMAW and other members of the AHC has led to such “animosity” between CMAW and those members that “forcing” CMAW on the AHC risks destabilizing the poly-party, leading to industrial instability, contrary to Code principles. Those who espouse this argument admit that it is speculative, but argue that the Board should not risk, in effect, “upsetting the apple cart” that is the AHC.
80 We are sensitive to the risk of upsetting the proper and effective functioning of the AHC. We appreciate the point that such voluntarily formed poly-party entities are an important part of the labour relations landscape, particularly in the construction industry. In that context they provide a mechanism by which craft unions could deal with some of the challenges facing the sector. However, at the same time we find the risk of industrial instability said to flow from allowing the addition of CMAW to be speculative and overblown. CMAW has clearly stated that it recognizes it would be bound by the AHC constitution and bargaining structure if its application to replace BCPC is allowed.
81 We also note that CMAW actively participated with the Bargaining Council of British Columbia Building Trades Unions (“BCBCBTU”) in the last round of collective bargaining with the Construction Labour Relations Association (“CLR”) through which an industry-wide settlement was reached. BCBCBTU is a council of 15 craft unions (many of which are also members of AHC) created under Section 41 of the Code to bargain on a multi-trade, multi-employer basis. CLR represents construction contractors who have a collective bargaining relationship with one or more of those building trades unions.
82 While the other constituent members of AHC may be unhappy to have CMAW as a member of AHC, both the context of the building trades sector as well as the fact that employees have voted to have CMAW replace BCPC as a means of dealing with challenges facing the sector must be recognized: see paras. 72-77 above. In these circumstances, we are not persuaded that the differences of opinion and approach between CMAW and other members of AHC are valid reasons to bar CMAW from replacing BCPC in the AHC. Constituent members of a poly-party union are not required to like one another or to agree with one another’s views on all topics; they are required to work together in a way which is ultimately not self-defeating but rather is for the greater good – that is for the good of the employees which they collectively represent.
83 In the circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to deny CMAW and BCPC’s application. The application reflects the wishes of employees who voted to have CMAW represent BCPC as their bargaining agent in order to deal with the challenges in the construction industry. In order not to unduly restrict the option CMAW
- 18 - BCLRB No. B235/2007
represents, we grant the application to have CMAW replace BCPC in the AHC Certification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)