Author
|
Topic: The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sask Labour Relations Board Fired
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 06 March 2008 03:10 PM
Larry Hubich President, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour has issued a press release: quote: News ReleaseFor immediate release March 6th, 2008 Labour Relations Board terminations unjustified The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour has learned that the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Labour Relations Board were terminated, effective immediately, this afternoon in the middle of a hearing in Regina. “These terminations are totally unjustified. The Sask. Party government has shown once again that they have no respect for the Trade Union Act and the Board that is in place to administer and enforce it,“ said SFL President Larry Hubich this afternoon. “Our information is that over 30 cases are pending before the Board. There are workers and employers who are mid-way through hearings. Where is the due process for these workers and employers? How can they be guaranteed that justice will be served? Workers’ organizations and employers’ representatives have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to have their cases heard. Who will pay the costs associated with these pending decisions?” “Terminating the Vice-Chairs and the Chair of the LRB in the middle of a hearing is like walking into a courtroom and firing the judge, effective immediately, in the middle of a trial. To fire these adjudicators summarily, without notice, shows a complete lack of respect for those individuals and for the labour relations community,” said Hubich. “The Sask. Party Government has launched yet another attack on working people and their rights. Why is the government so determined to disrupt labour relations, and the peaceful, legal mechanisms in place to govern it?” added Hubich.
http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22141&start=0
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 06 March 2008 05:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by munroe: Reasons aside, Unionist, this is a serious matter. If those who are independent adjudicators have no independence and tenure, then they are pawns politically. Harris did this and the courts slapped him hard.
You may be correct, munroe, but I don't know Saskatchewan law, I don't know the powers of the Minister, I don't know whether the Sask Party had mentioned this before publicly or even if they had promised to do this during the election, and I'd still like to know what reasons they gave. Alfonso Gagliano, acting on urging by the Reform Party, did the same thing (with the full support of the Liberal cabinet of the day) in 1997 when he fired the chair of the then-Canada Labour Relations Board based on scandal-mongering about expense claims but no actual wrongdoing, let alone any finding of wrongdoing. Anyway, if someone has more info than just a condemnation of the firings, please post. I'm too lazy to go dredge it up myself just now.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 06 March 2008 05:39 PM
Here is a little more information. It seems it's tied in with some new anti-labour legislation, which is far more sweeping than this firing - but I don't have the details on that yet. quote: A spokesperson for the government confirmed Thursday that chair James Seibel and vice-chairs Angela Zborosky and Catherine Zuck, the only full-time permanent members of the board, were terminated by the provincial cabinet. [...]Kathy Young, executive director of communications for the Sask. Party government, said a new board chair will be announced Friday. She described the firings as routine for a new government and denied there was a political agenda. "We don't think it's vindictive at all. In fact, the person that's going to be replacing the chair is someone with a great reputation who has been around on both sides of the labour equation," said Young, who declined to name the new chair. [...] Young said The Trade Union Act provides for the chairs and vice-chairs to be able to continue to hear cases that were already ongoing when their term expires. She said the three board members were verbally told by officials that they could continue their cases.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 06 March 2008 05:41 PM
Yeah, this unfortunately makes the firings look like a sideshow: quote: The Saskatchewan Federal of Labour (SFL) says two anti-labour bills introduced this week by the province's pro-business government are among the most regressive in Canada.The first, the Public Service Essential Services Act, would force employers and unions to establish essential services agreements 90 days before existing contracts expire. Where no agreement is reached, employers could dictate. The second, which amends the Trade Union Act, would require a written support level of 45% for new unions to win certification.
If that's accurate, it gives Saskatchewan the most anti-worker legislation anywhere in Canada on both essential services and certification.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 06 March 2008 06:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by munroe: Sorry, Unionist ... it's patterned on the Liberal's B.C. Labour Code.
Are you saying that if there's no agreement on essential services, the employers dictate (I'm going by the NUPGE release)????? In the private sector???? That means no right to strike anywhere ever. I must have misunderstood something.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970
|
posted 07 March 2008 01:34 AM
quote: She described the firings as routine for a new government and denied there was a political agenda.
So, their position is this is not "political" -- they're not doing this to try to influence the outcome of adjudication at the SLRB. Aside from that ludicrous statement, they also confidently declare that this type of action is routine for new governments. That is a blatent endorsement of the practice of graft in awarding administrative tribunal positions to party faithful; the spoils of war to the victor. Frightening. Even Harper pretends to support a transparent, merit-based appointment process. Should help these folks out in their lawsuits though.
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 07 March 2008 08:29 AM
quote: Originally posted by triciamarie: That is a blatent endorsement of the practice of graft in awarding administrative tribunal positions to party faithful; the spoils of war to the victor.
Are you seriously suggesting that any party doesn't behave this way? I had friends from the Prairies who used to pack their bags when the NDP were defeated and get similar jobs in other provinces (shuttling between B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and yes even Ontario for one stint). To call this "graft" is to have no dictionary on one's shelf. It's called "patronage", and it's legal. Doesn't make it less offensive, but do you think Calvert made appointments based on "merit"?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 07 March 2008 04:25 PM
Gordo didn't even fire the LRB when he came into power. He did appoint assholes to replace the board as their appointments were up but he at least had the decorum to wait till they either resigned or their terms were up.It is the final nail inn the coffin of that 70's idea of a neutral third party labour boards where unions and companies could go for a fair hearing. It has been eroded immensely over the last decade but if they are just political hacks and changed when the government changes then they are no longer a specialized quasi judicial tribunal and instead have become a star chamber. Edited because I originally wrote Harpo instead of Gordo. Sorry having a hard time telling them apart. [ 07 March 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 07 March 2008 04:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by munroe: If you are an adjudicator on an independent tribunal you must be above the sway of the politics. If that does not occur or your impartiality is compromised by partisan considerations, then you should not ethically, morally or legally participate.
I understand about adjudicators and arbitrators. But we're talking about political appointments here. I would like to understand how they can fire a vice-chair or chair in midterm without alleging wrongdoing. Are they acting lawfully? I'm not an expert on the Trade Union Act of Saskatchewan. That's why I asked for the reasons, right from my first post. And from my years of experience with labour boards, I'm far more concerned with the new legislation (mentioned above) than the particular names of the persons on a board. Ultimately it's the laws that determine what the labour board will decide, not the feelings and biases of the board members.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Hubich
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7866
|
posted 09 March 2008 08:50 PM
Hi Unionist,Thanks, keep checking my blog, and also the SFL web-site at: sfl.sk.ca Also, CUPE Sask has a fight-back site called: dontgiveuphope.ca And finally, very soon there will be an action campaign put up on the LabourStart Web-site. We could use that campaign pushed widely through e-mail broadcasts and list-serves. Larry
From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970
|
posted 10 March 2008 06:21 AM
The BC case of McKenzie v. Minister of Public Safety and Soliciter General et al. (2006 BCSC 1372) is concerning a well-respected landlord tenant arbitrator who was terminated without cause one year into a five-year fixed term appointment. The court found that the SCC's decisions in the PEI reference and Ocean Port left it unclear the extent to which quasi-judicial tribunals (in contrast to regulatory tribunals) "may require constitutional protection of a fair and independent arbiter, or may be left to whatever cowed or needy syncophant the government, in its absolute discretion, thrusts into the judgment seat. This is such an affront to the notion of a "fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal," guaranteed in writing elsewhere in the constitutional firmament, and is so fundamentally illogical and arbitrary, that it cannot be reconciled with the concept of the rule of law itself." (at para. 150) (Looks like The Honourable Mr. Justice McEwan has a dictionary on his shelf. ) The government agreed that the termination order must be quashed and Ms. McKenzie was reinstated. The law that the government had relied on in terminating her was repealed as "violating the constitutionally protected principle of independence required in the circumstances." The government's appeal from that decision was dismissed as moot, on a finding that the lower court decision had been narrowly based on the specific governing legislation that was struck down (2007 BCCA 5070). Ms. McKenzie has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (32398). http://www.bccat.net/News/More.asp [ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970
|
posted 23 March 2008 05:00 AM
Larry Hubich, President of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, was requesting babblers' support up thread in their fight against the virulently anti-labour actions of the new Saskatchewan Party majority government. quote: And finally, very soon there will be an action campaign put up on the LabourStart Web-site. We could use that campaign pushed widely through e-mail broadcasts and list-serves.Larry
The campaign is up now: http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=350
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893
|
posted 02 April 2008 06:00 PM
The first thing all right wing governments do when they get in power is attack union rights. From Hitler to Harris they have all done this. They correctly see these laws as the glue that holds a just society togetherIf only our "left" governments were as committed to improving the rights of workers when they come to power. Instead we get endless attempts at "balance" and "fairness" that the corporate elites will never accept and disillusioned workers who see no meaningful improvements in their conditions will never fight to defend. Freedom of Association is a constitutional right, its time the labour movement starts pushing this right in light of last summer's ruling. These proposed Sask Party laws might be a good place to start, as they both severely curtail this right.
From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970
|
posted 06 April 2008 05:39 AM
quote: Originally posted by a lonely worker: Freedom of Association is a constitutional right, its time the labour movement starts pushing this right in light of last summer's ruling.These proposed Sask Party laws might be a good place to start, as they both severely curtail this right.
Absolutely. As of April 2 the SFL letter-writing campaign was up to 2100 responses. quote: Dear Friends, On behalf of the workers and citizens of Saskatchewan, I want to personally thank you for taking the time to send a letter to Sask. Party Premier, Brad Wall and his Labour Minister, Rob Norris calling on them to withdraw their anti-worker, anti-democratic labour law bills (5 & 6). As of the writing of this e-mail more than 2100 of you have sent in an e-mail. See here: http://larryhubich.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-disapproval-of-anti-worker-brad.html Please share this e-mail reply with all of the people in your e-mail address book and ask them to go to the LabourStart web-site and send a letter as well. We need as many as possible. Let's keep the letters coming in. In Solidarity, Larry Hubich
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970
|
posted 21 April 2008 09:46 AM
quote:
April 18, 2008Thank you for expressing your concerns on the government’s proposed labour legislation, the Public Service Essential Services Act and amendments to the Trade Union Act. Our government is committed to establishing a fair and balanced labour environment that respects the rights of the province’s workers and employers, while remaining competitive with other Canadian jurisdictions. We are determined to protect the health and safety of Saskatchewan’s people by ensuring that essential services are maintained in the event of a labour disruption. On November 7, 2007, our platform received the endorsement of the people of Saskatchewan and now forms the priorities for our government. To meet these priorities, our government introduced two labour bills in December, 2007. Subsequently, the Honourable Rob Norris, Minister of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour, received submissions and personally met with representatives of labour and employer groups as well as interested stakeholders to discuss this legislation. Additional consultations by Ministry officials were conducted and public input was requested on-line and through newspaper advertisements that ran across the province. While I note your concerns, I can assure you that these two Bills will continue to be open to the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly, the media, and the people of this province. Ultimately, the Public Service Essential Services Act will provide for the safety of our families and neighbours, while respecting the rights of unions to take strike action. The amendments to the Trade Union Act ensure greater freedom and democracy in the workplace and help to enhance Saskatchewan’s competitiveness. Thank you again for sharing your views on this matter. Rob Norris Minster of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|