quote:

---

SOME of the most prominent people in Manitoba organized labour have been named in an unfair labour practice complaint as conducting a campaign of harassment and intimidation against a group of unionized female clerks.

---

Reminds me of a progressive, left wing on line news site and message board that uses non union employees, and at least at one time, didn't have a professional way of dealing with unsatisfactory performance issues of it's employees.

So why do progressive organizations sometimes treat their staff badly?

1. The particulars of the complaint;

2. The particulars of the response;

before making our ruling?

COPE webpage

They have 34,000 members with 47 locals and they are a CLC affiliate. There's nothing on their web page, yet, about this conflict. Of course, any conflict that could put any union in a bad light will get lots of "mainstream" media coverage. Babblers should do their own homework in such cases. These conflicts between unions and their employees can get pretty weird.

Having noted that, COPE looks like a legit union that promotes women in its membership, is involved in the all-Canadian, Provincial and Municipal levels of union organization in Canada, and seems to be growing.

[ 20 July 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

The COPE website, however, says the strike lasted five weeks.

I wonder how much else in the Free Press article was wrong?

COPE says that the employer (UFCW Local 832) ended up dropping their concession demands (including the 2-tier pay for new hires) - but that the workers signed a 4-year deal with no wage increases, and that "wages were never the issue, it was future workers and their well being that led to this strike".

This "union as employer" question does arise from time to time as we have seen. I have personal experience in that regard. There are the normal processes available to address the issues, again as we have seen as we will continue to see. In the end, there will be some resolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:
I should add one thing. Perhaps Manitoba law differs substantially from B.C., but a dispute of this nature would likely be set for arbitration and not a labour board case. In fact, I strongly doubt the Labour Board here would even take jurisdiction.

---

[ 20 July 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:
I hear you, unionist, but at least in B.C. the applicant does not necessarily have the right to simply choose the venue.

---

Oh, I agree, and I didn't mean to suggest the applicant had the choice. But let's say the scenario is like this (I'm just inventing details):

1. Two COPE activists fired in March; COPE grieves, citing anti-union animus.

2. In April, two local UFCW staffers are alleged to be spying on COPE members trying to meet with national officials. COPE grieves, citing some article of the collective agreement or other, also citing generally harassment, and maybe also an article of the Manitoba Labour Relations Act (using the Parry Sound principle that employment-type statutes can be considered as forming part of the c.a.).

3. In May, management issues a memo saying, no coffee at work station and no more personal calls. There is no direct violation of c.a., but union grieves anyway, citing the KVP principle in regard to unreasonable rules not being usable for discipline, and claiming also that management is estopped from changing some long-standing practice without proper notice... etc.

In the normal course, each of these situations (and maybe others - we haven't seen the complaint) would wend their way toward arbitration - separately. COPE might win some, all, or none of them. But if COPE is indeed alleging that they were all part of a coordinated scheme to rid the workplace of the union, it would be very hard, perhaps impossible, to plead the case(s) in that fashion.