Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud

[73] I therefore conclude that Mr. Kivela has established a prima facie case of discrimination against both the City and CUPE...

Regina (City) v. Kivela

Women who had as much as 15 years' seniority with the city of Toronto, were prevented from promotion to another position with the same employer in the same union.

Alumni of Bridges v. CUPE Local 43

Why do some unions try to delay justice?

[ 04 July 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Otherwise CUPE would have had a list as long as the distance from Paul Moist's Ivory Tower all the way to the land of apartheid.

---

Negad, it seems that you're more interested in grinding your axe with the labour movement than in actually dealing with issues.

In the second case in Saskatchewan, the union (and the employer) did make sincere efforts to accomodate the member by bending the provisions of the c.a. for a truck driver with cerebral palsy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:

Negad, it seems that you're more interested in grinding your axe with the labour movement than in actually dealing with issues.

---

No, actually I am more interested in seeign the reality that many are living rather than a romantic view of things that doesnot exists today.

The present structure of union does not reflect the spritit and concept of union as it is 9was) intended.

In fact the present structure of union serves the corporate world more than anything. They (teh corporate)wouldn't want to see it to be intrupted at all.

If opposing injustice towrads workers is considered an act of grinding an axe in anybody's book then so be it. That is the way it is, you call it what you want. I call it fighting for justice.

I have seen enough people being bullied by the big unions to not wanting to stop talking untill such a time that these practices are changed.

What do you think about Alumni of Bridges v. CUPE Local 43?

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Why do we need unions at all when the USA and Canada are also home to the greatest number of low wage, non-unionized, non-living wage jobs and percentage of total in comparison to other rich nations ?.

quote:

---

radiorahim:

What do you think about Alumni of Bridges v. CUPE Local 43?

---

[ 04 July 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Unless you have more, I'm seeing (possibly) systemic discrimination under the structure of the trade union legislation, but not necessarily wrongdoing on the part of the unions.

[ 26 April 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

I don't care if I like or don't like someone personally, so long as they're supporting, or at least not actively opposing, things that I think are important.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Those Unicorns can be real fascists.

---

quote:

---

Different locals of the same union, and different divisions of the same employer. Seniority doesn't necessarily transfer in such situations.

Unless you have more, I'm seeing (possibly) systemic discrimination under the structure of the trade union legislation, but not necessarily wrongdoing on the part of the unions.

---

The alumni of Bridges (female members of CUPE Local 79) made a human rights complaint against CUPE Local 43. The alumni of Bridges certainly felt that there was wrongdoing on the part of CUPE Local 43. The Ontario Human Rights Commission did not reject their complaint.

[ 19 May 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

I'm certainly not about to say that unions are always on the side of the angels. In regards to the Alumni case, though, I'd really like to see more details if you have 'em. I checked out the Commission website but I can't seem to find any details there.

But anyway, as I say, it would be interesting to know in detail the relationship between the City of Tornto and the Alumni group, as well as the Collective Agreement provisions for the two locals. Trade union law is really just contract law on steroids and a lot depends on what the contracts actually say; it doesn't necessarily (I like that word today it seems) follow that protecting seniority in your local = discriminating against women. More likly, IMO, they're discriminating against "people from outside the Local" which is certainly within their rights.

quote:

---

Trade union law is really just contract law on steroids and a lot depends on what the contracts actually say; it doesn't necessarily (I like that word today it seems) follow that protecting seniority in your local = discriminating against women. More likly, IMO, they're discriminating against "people from outside the Local" which is certainly within their rights.

---

Local 43 is protecting the seniority of its members. Without that provision in the contract, the whole concept of seniority is worthless. There are women working in the Local, and it appears that they're accruing seniority just fine.

I'm not in any way saying the situation is ideal. But I don't think it's a question of a union out to screw over women. Rather, it seems to be a union that's concerned about people outside the Local making an "end run" around the seniority provisions.

It may be de facto discrimination - that's what the Commission, and perhaps the Courts eventually, to decide. But I don't think it's anywhere near a clear-cut case of intentional discrimination.

quote:

---

The occupations of CUPE Local 79 members' are predominantly female and the occupations of CUPE Local 43 members' are predominantly male.

---

OK So what? The issue in this case is not whether CUPE Local 43 is predominantly male. There are probably a lot of reasons for that.

The issue is whether the union and/or employer are applying provisions of the collective agreement in a discriminatory fashion. According to your link, it looks like the members of CUPE Local 79 who have brought the complaint have been found to have stated a prima facie case. That's a good first step. Now, like Erstwhile says, its up to CUPE Local 43 to respond. Its kind of an interesting case and I thank you for bringing it to our attention. We'll have to see what happens. I think that what you have presented is a far cry from conclusive proof that any union is "trying to delay justice." Justice normally does require an opportunity to hear from both sides and a decision from a neutral body.

While I don't know the history, my guess would be that the predominantly "male" workers in the City of Toronto organized a union first.

Then later on the predominantly "female" workers organized into a separate CUPE local.

The two locals had separate collective agreements and totally separate seniority lists...even though they worked for the same employer.

Union members jealously guard their seniority rights. That's a fact and its completely understable. It affects their job security, bumping rights, vacation scheduling, work assignments, promotional opportunities etc.

Over a period of decades, these rights become very entrenched and altering them in any way is going to encounter resistance.

But collective agreements and seniority rights can create forms of "systemic" discrimination. Its possible that the human rights commission may make such a ruling in this case. From the limited knowledge I have of this case it appears that there are a group of women who are trying to break the gender gap.

Anyway, when you have multi-bargaining unit and multi-union workplaces, the politics can get really strange.

I know this from experience. I was once a member of a union (predominantly female) that had seniority lists based on service with the employer.

Another union (predominantly male)...and one that has a reputation for being extremely progressive had seniority lists based on membership in the union.

After many years of trying to change things, my union finally decided to close off seniority to employees coming into my union from another union.

Anyway, none of this kind of internal bickering between unions, locals of unions and bargaining units would happen if we had a collective bargaining system much more similar to what we see in Europe.

quote:

---

The issue is whether the union and/or employer are applying provisions of the collective agreement in a discriminatory fashion. I think that what you have presented is a far cry from conclusive proof that any union is "trying to delay justice." Justice normally does require an opportunity to hear from both sides and a decision from a neutral body.

Do you know if CUPE Local 79, as an organization, has taken a position on this litigation?

---

"Another had to do with CUPE Local 43 against the city of Toronto, where women who were attempting to get into nontraditional jobs were not being successful because of a clause in a collective agreement. The commission attempted to mediate the issue, to resolve it in an informal way, but we were unable to do so, so the commission had to initiate a complaint. At this time, we're still in the process of attempting to conciliate with the local to remove that particular clause which we find to be discriminatory and which is impacting against women. In fact, it's preventing women from accessing certain jobs in the local." -1020

Neil Edwards, Director
Regional Services and Systemic Investigation Unit
Ontario Human Rights Commission

Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard

Today I have sent emails to CUPE Local 79 and the city of Toronto.

[ 19 May 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

That link is 11 years old. Presumably something has happened since to deal with the issue one way or another.

---

It appears that CUPE Local 416 has succeeded CUPE Local 43.

CUPE Local 416 Outside Agreement

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

I don't understand why you post things that are years or in this case, over a decade old, without at least indicating their age in your opening message!

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

I don't understand why you post things that are years or in this case, over a decade old, without at least indicating their age in your opening message!

---

quote:

---

You invite us to comment on these things like they're ongoing issues. But like Radiorahim says, after 11 years there has probably been some sort of resolution.

---

It does not appear that there has been some sort of resolution. It appears that CUPE Local 416 seniority is restricted to CUPE Local 416 members.

CUPE Local 416 Outside Agreement

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

OR the Commission could have ruled there was no discrimination.

OR there might have been a settlement.

OR the matter might have been abandoned prior to decision.

OR the Commission might still be investigating - unlikely, but possible.

Regardless, at this point it's all speculation. The CBA doesn't prove anything about whether the matter's been resolved or not. And as I think I noted above, the simple fact that one Local was mostly women, and another was mostly men, does not, in itself, lead to the conclusion of discrimination.

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

quote:

---

That doesn't tell us, however, what the Human Rights Commission found. It's possible, I think, that the Commission could have ordered a resolution that did not involve re-drafting the CBA, for instance ordering that that particular group of women be granted seniority within local 43 (now 416 or whatever).

OR the Commission could have ruled there was no discrimination.

The CBA doesn't prove anything about whether the matter's been resolved or not. And as I think I noted above, the simple fact that one Local was mostly women, and another was mostly men, does not, in itself, lead to the conclusion of discrimination.

---

"... At this time, we're still in the process of attempting to conciliate with the local to remove that particular clause which we find to be discriminatory and which is impacting against women. In fact, it's preventing women from accessing certain jobs in the local." -1020

Neil Edwards, Director
Regional Services and Systemic Investigation Unit
Ontario Human Rights Commission

Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard

A settlement that does not change the CUPE Local 416 collective agreement (not even a letter of agreement)?

[ 23 May 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:

A settlement that does not change the CUPE Local 416 collective agreement (not even a letter of agreement)?

---

Just because you ask for something doesn't mean you'll get it. Just because they asked for the clause to be removed doesn't mean that's the only possible ruling. I'd think that would be obvious, but I guess not.

Courts and tribunals "read in" to agreements, contracts etc. all the time.

If it had been a settlement, then yeah, there'd probably be a Letter of Understanding. However a settlement was only one of several options I put forward. If the Commission read something in, or if it dismissed the matter, or if the matter were abandoned, then no change would necessarily take place. I'd think that would be obvious, too.

It's all speculation. You're speculating just as much as the rest of us - only difference is you're taking assumptions and pre-conceived notions as facts.

yourself.

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

The dispute here appears not to have directly involved the employer; it principally involved the union and a group of complainants from another union. I could see a number of possible ways this could be settled without changing the collective agreement. Or the tribunal could have ruled against the complainants. Or the complainants could have dropped the case. Why don't you do some homework? Call the Human Rights Commission and ask them what happened?

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Call the Human Rights Commission and ask them what happened?

---

I will talk to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]