Negotiations in a practical sense require both parties to negotiate in "good faith".

[CliqueofOne]

TO ALL UTU GO-105 MEMBERS AT CN RAIL

As most of you are aware, negotiations with the Company have been ongoing for some time. In fact, a year has passed since first commencing negotiations. Recently Mr. H. Harrision, CEO of Canadian National, issued a broadcast message purportedly to his managers. A message which, in the view of the undersigned, was clearly meant to undermine the negotiations and your negotiating team.

As many of you are aware, negotiations in a practical sense require both parties to negotiate in "good faith". This concept is not only an essential practical requirement but is clearly recognizable within the Canada Labour Code. The actions and behaviour of the Company, with respect to "good faith" negotiations, is certainly questionable.

CN's approach to labour relations and negotiations is clearly exemplified in a report by Mr. Harrision to Investors in November 2002 with respect to his approach to achieving "breakthrough labour agreements". Simply put, to achieve "breakthrough agreements" the Company must embark on a "carrot and stick approach to changing behaviours."

It is, regrettably, without dispute that the Company has embarked on an aggressive and intrusive approach to achieve these goals. It is interesting to note that Mr. Harrision alleges that the Company is only seeking the "status quo". The reality of the situation belies Mr. Harrison's statement. To this point, one needs only to reflect on the continued aggressive and abusive approach with respect to the Company's Attendance Management Policy. In addition, the unprecedented Arbitration hearings and complaints to the Canada Industrial Relations Board clearly demonstrates the Company's views on Labour Relations.

Simply put, and unfortunately, this Company, in my opinion, is of the view that intimidation, harassment and abusive Collective Agreement interpretations will be the "stick" which will pu***he Union and the membership to accept a regressive contract.

Mr. Harrison, it appears (and with respect), may not be familiar with the Canada Labour Code which states in part:

"AND WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of fruits of progress to all;"

Mr. Harrision states, "we are not seeking concessions". Clearly this approach to these negotiations is inconsistent with the above referenced section of the Code. It should be noted that CN Rail is one, if not the most profitable Railways in North America. This was clearly accomplished, in part, by the dedicated hard work of the membership. Unfortunately, these gains, in my opinion, were also achieved by the continued abuse and violation of the Collective Agreement(s). Recall the recent cease and desist and compliance orders from the Arbitrator.

It should be noted that CN Rail has achieved record profits. In fact, CN Rail's second-quarter report for 2004 indicates a 34% rise in net income.

Although financial considerations are a necessary and expected ingredient of any negotiations, it should be stressed that the focus of your negotiating committee is to achieve a quality of work life, which, among other things, is free of Company harassment and intimidation.

Mr. Harrison suggests that the membership's concerns can be addressed by implementing scheduling and settling Furlough Board issues (Western Canada). The "spin" generated by Mr. Harrision regarding the manner in which the Company would address these issues are, in my view, extremely dangerous and misleading.

On Friday, the 24th of September (the last day of the scheduled negotiations session), the Company submitted a document of settlement which, in my view, was tantamount to "bad faith bargaining". The Company paper (with new positions) suggested that a contract be entered into based on the following principles:

1. CAW pattern agreement - 3% - same benefits

2. Elimination of Furlough Boards (Western Canada)

3. Lump sum bonus - $1,000.00

4. Implementation of a "746" bidding concept.

(eliminating many of the provisions of the collective agreement with respect to the manner in which assignments are filled)

5. Removal of mileage limitations.

(recall the quote of Mr. Harrision in the Financial Post - November 12, 2003 - "Now we can get 7,000 to 7,500 miles a month from the same employees that were producing 4,000 to 4,500 miles a month")

6. Employees required to perform other work within their scope without regard to Road/Yard jurisdictional issues.

(this at the beginning or upon completion of a tour of duty)

7. Employees will have scheduled time off (one or two days), consistent with the needs of service.

Without dispute, the Company paper does not meet the needs of the membership. Your negotiating team is committed to achieving a contract that is fair and equitable. A contract that will be ratified by the membership. Your negotiating team is committed and determined to achieve a contract that reflects the wishes of the membership. Your negotiating team is committed and determined to achieve a contract that is consistent with sound labour/industrial relations. A concept that was recognized and adopted by the Parliament of Canada. A concept that was enshrined in the Canada Labour Code.

Your negotiating team will stay the course. The Company should not underestimate the will and determination of this Union and the membership in this regard.

Words of advice - BE STRONG - GET PREPARED - STAY UNITED

Fraternally,
Signed
R. A. BEATTY
General Chairperson UTU

Source: www.utueast.org
September 29, 2004

[tree68]

Alas, good faith, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[Junctionfan]

Nothing that Hunter Harrison does surprises me anymore. I sent an e-mail to the NDP party of Canada advising them of the problems regarding Hunter Harrison. I will see what happens from their. I may start asking some of you CN employees information so I can write in commentary for the various newspapers.

Since I don't work for CN, I can say anything I want about CN as long as I can back it up so I am thinking I should embark on the difficult quest in try to get Harrison on some kind of a leash by providing information to the public by commentary which hopefully will result in the government being pressured by the media and the general public. I didn't want to get into politics this early on in my life because I felt that I had too much more to learn about life, but, someone has got to step up to the plate and legally be brutal with Harrison by making him look really bad through public opinion.

Any opinions on this would be appreciated

[CliqueofOne]

You can always contact me. I refuse to cower under the threats of our foreign masters. Signal Mechanic. Signal Department. Canadian National Railways. Not intimidated, not impressed.[:-^]

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen - having retired from the rail industry after having been in it for 40+ years, and having drawn paychecks from union jobs and management jobs, one thing about the phrase "good faith" has become obvious to me.

When the union doesn't get everything it wants, or nearly everything, it accuses the carrier of not negotiating in "good faith".

It's just like a political party - when it doesn't like something the other party has done, and can't muster any specifics why it doesn't like it, it accuses the other party of being "mean-spirited".

Semantics, pure and simple, and intended to further inflame the hotheads that probably don't really need any further prodding.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

Thanks Old Timer for the reality check.

Perhaps it might seem odd, but looking at the points referenced it seems to me that most of the CN requests have been implemented by U.S. Railroads a while back. Pretty rare to see many furlough boards any more. Road and yard distinction has been gone on the NS for a long time and having road crews switching at the beginning or end of a tour is not uncommon. Scheculed time off is nice, we don't have that and I can't argue with a lump sum bonus.

Where's the beef??

LC

[Junctionfan]

Unless I'm mistaken, the reason why the Canadian workers of CN are getting upset is because Harrison is not going by the laws of Canada but maybe the U.S. NS and other U.S railroads have nothing to do with the laws of Canada unless they operate in Canada. That I believe is what the unions and the workers are upset about. If they were in the U.S, there likely wouldn't be such a fuss because the laws are different there. Here though, we are quite strict about what you can and can't do in the Canada concerning labour and Harrison doesn't seem to think he should adapt to our laws when dealing with Canadian workers which is of course rediculous.

That's the just of what I have been hearing from the Canadian CN workers and that union letter is just somebody else stating the same thing.

[Anonymous]

I say labor unionists who don't like their jobs should quit and let those work who want to work. No one owns a job and no one should be able to use the power of government to force others to give them what they want.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to know what specific labor law is being violated. Mr. Beatty's letter above quotes only a "whereas" clause which is not part of a statute but only a portion of the legislative intent and holds no legal authority. Further, the balance of the letter contains nothing more than innuendo and speculation based upon certain unsubstantiated blanket commentary about CNs conduct concerning it's attendance policy.

Where's the beef?

LC

[CliqueofOne]

cnwrwyman

That you Hillbilly?[:o)] Or something like it.?

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cnwrwyman

I say labor unionists who don't like their jobs should quit and let those work who want to work. No one owns a job and no one should be able to use the power of government to force others to give them what they want.

What do you think labour laws are designed to do?