 |
|
|
|
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
News Feed Mar 12 Mar 11 Mar 11 Mar 10 Mar 8 Feb 29 Feb 14 Feb 13 Feb 13 Feb 11 |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||
|
SGEU Refuses Both Mediation and More Bargaining |
|||||||||
|
On November 20, 2007 the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour offered their assistance to appoint a special mediator for SGEU and CEP Local 481. CEP accepted the offer shortly thereafter. On November 30, 2007 SGEU refused the SFL’s offer but indicated they may be willing to return to the bargaining table. On December 3, 2007 CEP 481 contacted SGEU to return to the table and exchange ideas for a suitable bargaining date. That afternoon, Bob Bymoen called to say that SGEU was not prepared to go back to the bargaining table. On December 4, 2007 CEP 481’s President wrote an informational letter to the Provincial Council members regarding the SGEU’s refusal of the SFL’s offer of mediation, SGEU’s refusal to return to the bargaining table and the lock-out of their employees. CEP Local 481 issued a Press Release on December 5, 2007 regarding the refusal of SGEU to accept the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s offer to find an independent mediator to help broker a settlement between the two sides. |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
November 20, 2007 Bob Bymoen Kelly Diebel Greetings: RE: SGEU – CEP 481 Dispute Last week the SFL Collective Bargaining/Strike Strategy Committee met in Regina to discuss a number of issues, one of which was the dispute between SGEU and CEP 481. After much discussion, and many words of caution regarding our involvement in this matter, the following motion was passed: “This Committee recommends to the SFL Executive Council that they offer to CEP 481 and SGEU to appoint a special mediator, with the same scope of authority as provided to a special mediator under Section 23.1 of the Trade Union Act; and if agreed to, that both parties consider suspending active components of the dispute while the mediator does his/her work.” We have since polled our Executive Council and the response to date has indicated overwhelming support of us contacting the parties to offer our assistance in facilitating a settlement to your dispute. Both the SFL Collective Bargaining/Strike Strategy Committee and our Executive Council understand the gravity of this situation and respect the autonomous rights of each party. However it is widely felt that the parties must talk to each other in order to find agreement. It is felt that now more than ever we need a unified labour movement. Accordingly, I ask that each party meet with me to discuss how a special mediator may assist in resolving this dispute. I believe such meetings should take place sooner rather than later and would be prepared to meet at almost any time. An Injury to One Is An Injury to All! In Solidarity, Larry Hubich President cc David Winter, CLC SFL Collective Bargaining/Strike Strategy Cmte Kate McKinley, CEP SFL Executive Council /dl/cupe4828/cep481-sgeu-nov07 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
To: SGEU Provincial Council members From: Kelly Diebel, President, CEP Local 481 Re: Lock-out of SGEU Staff I am writing to inform you that, on November 30, Bob Bymoen refused the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s offer to take part in special mediation. CEP Local 481 had agreed to the SFL’s process. At the same time that Bob Bymoen refused mediation, he expressed a willingness to return to the bargaining table. As a result, on December 3, CEP Local 481 contacted SGEU to return to the table. On December 4, President Bymoen informed us that SGEU was not prepared to go back to the bargaining table. CEP Local 481 believes that members of SGEU’s Provincial Council have a right to the facts surrounding the current labour dispute. We therefore take this opportunity to correct the misinformation contained in the November 22, 2007 memo from SGEU President Bob Bymoen to PC members. SICK LEAVE BANK Bob Bymoen states that due to the sick leave bank, SGEU: “lost much of its ability to manage sick leave within its workforce.” The collective agreement (Article 25.1-3) allows the employer to request supporting medical evidence and cease sick leave payments. As in all workplaces, management has the right to discipline employees who abuse sick leave. Bob Bymoen states: “The sick bank has created a sick leave culture within our staff that is not healthy and does not promote positive industrial relations.” This rhetoric is not born out by the facts. This statement suggests that the CEP sick leave bank is abused by staff. However, SGEU leaders acknowledge that, on average, SGEU staff use four days sick leave per year whereas PSGE employees use twice that amount. There are often allegations by individuals and groups (the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, for example) that government workers use more sick leave than other workers. The government does not respond to this charge by agreeing to claw back sick leave benefits for public service workers. Each case is managed individually within the existing collective agreement, labor law and the applicable jurisprudence. We challenge SGEU to appropriately manage its human resources, not make unsubstantiated accusations of abuse. Some SGEU leaders have been citing the fact that an individual was on the sick bank for 17 years as an example of abuse. But, the truth is that the employee in question was out-of-scope, and Local 481 agreed to a management request to allow that person to access sick bank benefits. If management believes that sick leave is being abused, it has typical management-rights to address specific problems. Management is entitled to investigate and substantiate suspicions of abuse, and then to take appropriate steps to redress the situation. Failure to do so is simply poor management. Bob Bymoen states: “The number of days continued to grow in the bank creating an unfunded liability worth millions of dollars.” SGEU does not pay out sick days remaining in a person’s bank upon retirement nor is there any other form of payout with this benefit. Indeed if SGEU was to close its doors today it would not cost the union one penny in the pay out of sick leave. The sick leave bank is underwritten by the LTD. Staff on long-term sick leave receive 80% of benefits from this insurance plan, so the cost to SGEU is 20% of that individual’s salary, not 100%. Bob Bymoen states: The SGEU management bargaining proposal offers to “bridge current employees to LTD if they do not have enough sick leave earned.” This had been in SGEU’s proposal but it was withdrawn almost a year ago. CEP Local 481 has been willing to address management concerns about the sick leave bank. We have tabled proposals that would:
These offers have been rejected by the SGEU bargaining committee. The sick bank has not created a sick leave culture within our staff. Our members’ health is affected, however, by work overload created by SGEU’s reluctance to hire more staff despite increasingly heavy workloads. WAGES Bob Bymoen states: “Provincial Council “has asked the management bargaining committee to negotiate a pay increase that does not increase the gap between the salaries of the membership and those of our staff.” Trade unionists do not try to achieve wage equity by bargaining down the wages of higher paid workers. Do we agree with those members of the public who argue that liquor store employees should not be paid more than the low wage rates paid to a clerk in a 7-11 convenience store? Do we agree with those individuals who say that government workers should not earn more than an employee doing similar work in the private sector, and do we then choose to bargain lower wages for PSGE members, to ensure that the wage gap does not grow? Of course not. Trade unionists achieve equity by working hard to bargain better wages for all workers. Our wage request is reasonable. We are asking for 13.1 per cent in the same five-year period that most SGEU members received 18.6 per cent. The CEP Local 481 wage proposal is: 0% July 1, 2004 1% July 1, 2005 1% July 1, 2006 2.6% January 1, 2007 3.5% July 1, 2007 5% July 1, 2008 Total: 13.1% over 5 years. Most SGEU members received: 1% 2004-05 3% 2005-06 2.6% cola 2005-06 3.5% 2006-07 4.0% 2007-08 4.5% 2008-09 Total: 18.6% over 5 years SGEU is offering a wage package lower than the rate of inflation:
SGEU staff wages already lag far behind those paid to workers in other unions. Currently, SGEU Agreement Administration Advisors are paid 23 per cent less than staff who do the same work in comparable unions across the country. They also earn about $10 an hour less than the Labour Relations Consultants who do the same type of work for the government of Saskatchewan. Administrative Assistants who work for SGEU earn 10 per cent less than their counterparts in other unions. It is sadly ironic that SGEU choses to single out administrative assistants as being overpaid. For years SGEU proclaimed that "Pay equity is our priority", but when it comes to its own workers, the union leadership chooses to attack this female-dominated group, rather than support these women’s right to a decent wage. The wage data cited above is based on a broad sample of unions comparable to SGEU: B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union, Alberta Union of Public Employees, Manitoba Government Employees’ Union, Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union and the Nova Scotia Government and General Employees’ Union. PENSION Bob Bymoen states: “we have increased the employer’s pension contribution on behalf of staff by an additional 2.5% and will increase it by an additional 3% on January 1, 2008. to meet our actuarial obligations.” CEP Local 481 members are also contributing an additional 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent increase in pension contributions. This amounts to a 5.5 per cent cut in pay, with no corresponding increase in pension benefits. Bob Bymoen states: The CEP Local 481 “proposal amounts to a cumulative salary increase of 13.74% [actually 13.1%] plus a pension increase of 5.5% for a total compensation increase of 19.24% from July 1, 2005 - July 1, 2008. Pension contribution increases are not to be considered part of the wage package being negotiated, according to a 2005 arbitration decision (City of Regina and Regina Professional Firefighters Union). This means that SGEU cannot claim that our wage proposal includes the legally-required increase in pension contributions. It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to say we are asking for 19.24 per cent. Our wage request is 13.1 per cent. The additional 5.5 pension contribution will not show up on our pay cheques! Bob Bymoen states: “It became very clear that the staff are not interested in doing anything to address the problems with the pension plan.” Of course we want to address pension plan issues. After all, it is our futures that are at stake. However, we are not prepared to abandon our other bargaining priorities because we now find ourselves facing difficulties with our pension plan. Now more than ever, we need a wage increase to help offset the hefty pension contribution rate increases we are shouldering. Our pension plan dilemma stems, in part, from SGEU’s decision to take a contribution holiday a few years ago when we were in a surplus situation. STATE OF LABOUR RELATIONS Bob Bymoen states: “CEP told management that bargaining was over and asked us to leave the room.” CEP put forward a new set of proposals on November 6, 2007. SGEU’s bargaining committee indicated that the last offer was the final offer. In the view of CEP, bargaining had reached an impasse. We did not ask SGEU to leave the room. SGEU’s committee had been using a different room as its caucus room. Presumably they had documents and equipment there. They left of their own accord. Bob Bymoen states: “This was the first notice that I had re strike activity in Saskatoon and Prince Albert.” CEP Local 481 served legal strike notice in April. Bob Bymoen states: “It was obvious that the whole event was staged by CEP and they never had any intentions to negotiate a settlement.” This is an inflammatory statement. Intending to not negotiate a settlement is an unfair labour practice. If this is what SGEU leaders believe, then they should file charges with the Labour Relations Board. No committee goes into bargaining without knowing what it will do in the event of a variety of possible outcomes. Had SGEU showed itself prepared to move toward bargaining an agreement, rather than issuing ultimatums, the outcome would have been different. Bob Bymoen states: “CEP did not have any discussions with SGEU to discuss some protocol to ensure that assets and private, personal information are secure when they go on strike or that we can vacate our buildings so that the members who are meeting in them are not called scabs.” It is up to SGEU management to take the initiative to hold such discussions. Strike notice was served months ago. There was plenty of time and plenty of warnings that such discussions were needed. No members or out-of-scope staff in the buildings were hindered or called scabs as they left on November 6. Bob Bymoen states: “CEP was aware of [the fact that Provincial Council voted to lock-out staff at its June meeting] prior to initiating the job action on November 6, 2007.” How was CEP to know this? Bob did not advise the local of Provincial Council’s decision. Such discussions are held in camera and even if minutes of the meeting had been circulated, we would not have been able to see this decision. We were unaware that this motion was passed at Provincial Council. IN SUMMARY When unions are employers, they are morally bound to meet the highest standards of fair play and good treatment. The true test of union leaders’ principles is how well they apply them to their own employees. SGEU leaders have failed this test by locking out their employees, using one of the most despised management tools available. CEP Local 481 requests that SGEU provide its negotiating committee with the authority to negotiate a fair agreement. Your actions will be remembered. |
|||||||||