CN Running Trades to Strike in Canada

[Anonymous]

Just read in the Vancouver Sun today that CN running trades employees (In Canada) are in a postition to call for a strike within the next few weeks, they just have to give their 72 hours notice.

To counteract the strike CN has hired 1000 new managers to run the trains while the running trades are striking (if they do).

......kind of defeats the purpose of a strike if CN can just hire more people to run the trains, in this case I suppose they just call them "Managers" instead of "Scabs".

[Anonymous]

CN Rail downplays Canadian strike concerns

(Reuters circulated the following story by Allan Dowd on January 10.)
VANCOUVER, B.C. -- Canadian National Railway Co. sought on Monday to downplay concern about a possible strike by three Canadian unions, saying it remained optimistic a negotiated settlement can be reached.
The railway, Canada's largest and North America's No. 5, also said the intervention of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) last month meant there could not be labor stoppage until regulators determine essential service levels.
CN Rail has been negotiating with its Canadian train crews and signal maintenance employees for months and there has been increasing concern among analysts that two of the unions could walk off the job by the end of January.
A CIRB official said the board is taking submissions from the company and the unions on what levels of train service must be maintained in a dispute to protect immediate public safety. It has not said when it will issue a ruling.
"It depends on what comes in," said Tom Panelli, director of the CIRB's western regional office.
Canada's federal labor minister ordered the CIRB to get involved in late December, and the right to strike or impose a lockout is suspended until the board rules.
CN said it will bargain with the unions while the CIRB investigates the issue. "The company remains optimistic settlements can be reached without labor disruption," it said in a news release.
The United Transportation Union, which represents 2,520 brakemen and conductors, and Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, which represents 1,750 locomotive engineers, have expressed concern about the CIRB's intervention.
The unions said they already had agreements with CN that set essential service levels. The Teamsters also complained that increasing the number of engineers forced to work during a strike would weaken its bargaining position.
"Our position in this matter was and still is grounded in the fact that CN has a sufficient number of qualified locomotive engineers within their management ranks to provide any services required for maintenance of activities," the Teamsters wrote in a letter to its members.
The UTU and CN have agreed to more talks, but either side could serve a 72-hour notice of work stoppage as of Jan. 17. The union has said that while it is optimistic for a settlement it has also warned members "to prepare for the worst."
Unresolved issues include company disciplinary policies, according to a UTU memo.
CN Rail's engineers are now voting whether to give their union a strike mandate, with the results expected Jan. 25, according to the Teamsters. Details of unresolved issues in their dispute were not immediately available.
Talks between CN and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents about 630 employees, are still before a federal labor conciliator.
A labor stoppage would not include train or signal crews working on the former BC Rail in Western Canada, which negotiated a new contract prior to its acquisition by CN last year.

[Junctionfan]

Isn't scabs illegal in Canada? I could have sworn it was but don't know for sure.

Maybe CN should attempt meaningful bargaining before hiring scabs. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

that is the problem with the unions, they are allowed to screw up the rest of the peoples lives so they can squable about a few more bucks in their pocket. Maybe not in railroads, but in other businesses, there is a reason why most companies that are going overseas are ones that were union.
Brad

[co614]

An interesting question;is this the first chess move in CN attempting to morph into a non-union carrier??? As discussed at length some weeks ago on this site,if that is the game plan then these moves would make sense. It will be interesting to see how it plays out!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by co614

An interesting question;is this the first chess move in CN attempting to morph into a non-union carrier??? As discussed at length some weeks ago on this site,if that is the game plan then these moves would make sense. It will be interesting to see how it plays out!

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that CN would love to shed its Union.

They have no hesitation whatsoever about hiring on 1000 new managers to keep the steel wheels a rolling when the workers go on strike.

Believe me, there probably wouldn't be a shortage of people willing to run trains at $11/hour either.

[Anonymous]

Railroad labor is a battleship with two huge torpedo holes in it. Unfotunately the continuing squabbles between the seperate Unions is creating a gaping hole in any kind of bargaining strength that these unions have. The Carriers know this, and they will take full advantage of the impotence of the unions. Solidarity needs to occur. Trades need to stop selling out each other and one common cause must be put on the table, to keep the jobs we have before more are lost. What frustrates me is that the BLE and UTU want to keep putting knives in each other's backs while the carriers mount an offensive they won't be able to fight off. I'd rather just merge under one giant union, but my problem with that is the Teamsters are involved with the BLE. I just don't get the logic in joining the Teamsters, which will waste no time in selling out their rail buddies and raiding their pension vault. They represent trucking interests, the very antithesis of railroads!!!! Oh well, what do I know??? If Unions are going to be so impotent anyway, why even have them? I might as well try to be a contract employee, then at least when I was "let go" I'd still get my severance package. Maybe I've been lead astray by the horrible leadeship of my own Local Union leaders, but I just have not been shown any kind of leadership or resolve that will get us anywhere as a whole. I'm tired of trying to sell out the engineer with wearing a remote box or forcing new hires to take a pay cut to keep people working.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n_stephenson

Railroad labor is a battleship with two huge torpedo holes in it. Unfotunately the continuing squabbles between the seperate Unions is creating a gaping hole in any kind of bargaining strength that these unions have. The Carriers know this, and they will take full advantage of the impotence of the unions. Solidarity needs to occur. Trades need to stop selling out each other and one common cause must be put on the table, to keep the jobs we have before more are lost. What frustrates me is that the BLE and UTU want to keep putting knives in each other's backs while the carriers mount an offensive they won't be able to fight off. I'd rather just merge under one giant union, but my problem with that is the Teamsters are involved with the BLE. I just don't get the logic in joining the Teamsters, which will waste no time in selling out their rail buddies and raiding their pension vault. They represent trucking interests, the very antithesis of railroads!!!! Oh well, what do I know??? If Unions are going to be so impotent anyway, why even have them? I might as well try to be a contract employee, then at least when I was "let go" I'd still get my severance package. Maybe I've been lead astray by the horrible leadeship of my own Local Union leaders, but I just have not been shown any kind of leadership or resolve that will get us anywhere as a whole. I'm tired of trying to sell out the engineer with wearing a remote box or forcing new hires to take a pay cut to keep people working.

The engineers still want the payback for those remote boxes, they wanna start running Engineer Only, yikes, that'll take a hit.

Conductors in the Yard and Engineers on the freights.... hope it never comes to that.

Here at CP we are all one Union, but different divisions, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference represents the Conductors and Hoggers.

CN is still UTU for conductors but Teamsters for the hoggers.

[Anonymous]

It's all just so frustrating. I just don't know what to think anymore, you know???

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n_stephenson

It's all just so frustrating. I just don't know what to think anymore, you know???

Yup.

It's going to be interesting to see what happends if the CN UTU decides to strike.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
(The following report appeared on the Winnipeg Sun website on February 2. Dan J. Sewachuk is one of the BLET’s General Chairman (CN-P&M) on the Canadian National.)


WINNIPEG -- Locomotive engineers with Canadian National Railways have voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action, their union reported yesterday. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, representing 1,800 CN engineers across Canada, announced yesterday its members had voted 90% in favour of striking.


"These results are a clear indication of the feelings of our members and are also indicative of the poor labour relations atmosphere at CN," general chairman Dan Shewchuk said yesterday in a written release. "Issues such as rest requirements, time off, (and) time spent away from home, coupled with the harassment and intimidation of our members, are some of the issues at the core of these negotiations."


The union will be in a position to launch a legal national strike as soon as the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) rules on the issue of essential services, Shewchuk said.

The union has requested the CIRB expedite its ruling in this matter, he added.

Does anyone want to bet on how many days the hoggers go before they are legislated back to work?

2 Days, 3?

[CliqueofOne]

To all CN Members of System Council #11

Subject Strike Mandate

I regret to inform you that your negotiation committee has been unable
to negotiate a Collective Agreement settlement that would be
satisfactory to the Membership.
There are four major items that we are having difficulties with that I
will explain.

WAGES

Many of you may have heard or been told that the Union turned down an
offer of a wage increase of 3% for each year of the contract. The
offer to the Union was 2.5% for each year and keep Gainshare or give
up Gainshare and receive 3% for each year. Gainshare was an original
demand for the Company two contracts ago. To give up something that is
worth 2 - 4 % per year in trade for a 0.5% wage increase is illogical.
There is a set pattern in this area from other negotiated contracts
within CN.

Self Directed Units

The Company and the Union have major differences in the interpretation
of this agreement. It is at the moment that the differences are in
Eastern Canada and if cannot be settled could spread to other parts of
Canada. The major differences include but are not limited to:

Hours of work that is outside of the Agreement to provide live
coverage between 06:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday. The Company is
demanding and forcing Members of some SDU'S to provide and protect
work on the territory to support work projects as to avoid overtime.
It is the Union's position that this violates the SDU Agreement as it
is work outside hours of duty.
Compensation for working on a rest day when the SDU is not fully
staffed.
Compensation for penalty payments when qualified personnel are
unavailable to fully staff SDU'S
Vacation relief for SDU'S when not permanently staffed with a Rover or
when staffed with less than enough Members to accommodate vacation
requirements.
The attempt the company has made for Members of the SDU to change
regular week shifts to weekend shifts with no overtime payments.

SDU'S originated from the 1997 round of negotiations when nothing was
addressed for Standby. The demands placed on the stand by Members had
increased since the downsizing and reorganization of the S&C
Department in December of 1993 and in it's present form was no longer
acceptable. The 1997 Memorandum of Settlement was turned down by
almost 60% of the Membership. A second attempt at an Agreement was
made and a Stand By Review Committee was formed which is explained in
Appendix DD (Part 1) of your Collective Agreement. This committee went
across the Country to determine what was needed to make stand by
acceptable. This formed a new Memorandum of Settlement which was
ratified by a slim margin. A Self Directed Unit Agreement was signed
and entered into on April 13th 1999 which is in Appendix DD (Part 2)
The

Company is now attempting to bastardize the Agreement to satisfy their
greed for profits at your expense by their interpretations of the SDU
Agreement. They are attempting to use the Agreement to supersede what
they could not do if there was no SDU Agreement in place.

Discipline

The Company has eliminated the Brown system of discipline and has
gone to a heavy handed system of suspensions and letters of discipline
on your file with the threat and intimidation of 3 strikes and your
Fired. They have done this because under the Brown System there was a
set pattern of demerits for certain offences. Now that it is a new
system of discipline there is nothing to compare it with. The
Brotherhood is attempting to revert this back to the Brown System of
discipline. You may not think this is important until it happens to
you. There have been Members fired for minor offences.


Skill Study

The skill study was from the last round of Negotiations. The
Brotherhood had tried to meet with the company prior to starting this
round of negotiations to no avail. It is our position that it should
have been done before this round but the company says that the
Agreement was signed by Officers of the Company that are no longer
there and will not recognize the understanding and commitment of this
Agreement. It should have been put on your wages starting in 2003. It
should not be part of this round of negotiations but this is the best
way we can settle this short of going to Arbitration.
The Company has offered a small lump sum payment to settle the issue
but the Union insists that any payment be in the form of an hourly
wage increase so as to compound over time and be pensionable. A strong
strike mandate will help your Union negotiate rather than arbitrate.

Your Negotiating Committee has met many times formally and informally.
On many occasions we thought we were getting somewhere but by the end
of the day we were further behind from where we started.

On June 30th and July 1st 2004 the Union met with the Company with the
assistance of a Federal Mediator. During this attempt the Union had
agreed in principle to a Company demand and the Company removed that
demand and refused to acknowledge our acceptance of their demand.
Needless to say those talks broke off and we have not formally met
since. All the Company wanted at that time was another agreement in
place to show to the other Unions.

On December 10, 2004 the Union and the Company have entered into the
last stage of Negotiations.

Two Federal Conciliation Officers have been appointed by the Minister
of
Labour. This stage lasts 60 days (February 8, 2005) unless extensions
are mutually agreed to. After sixty days and no agreement have been
reached then there is a twenty one day cooling off period ( March 02,
2005 )After these 2 time frames either party can issue 72 hour Strike
Notice or Lock Out notice. On December 22nd, 2004 the Union requested
to meet with the company any time in January. This request went
through the Federal Conciliation Officer. To date the Company has
refused to acknowledge this request.

On October 2003 before we stared negotiating and as a requirement of
the Canada Labour Code Section 87.4(1) a Maintenance of Activities
(MOA) was entered into and signed by both parties. The parties agreed
in the event that there is a legal work stoppage by either party that
no one would be required to work essential positions. The MOA States
in part "After a thoughtful review, CN believes that there are no
services, such as those contemplated by section 87.4(1) of the code,
that we jointly need to agree to continue to supply in the event of a
legal strike or lock-out". This agreement was filed with the Minister
of Labour in 2003, but now after fourteen months of Bargaining and
things are not going to good with three Unions ( BLE/TCRC, UTU, and
IBEW ) all of a sudden there is a need to review this agreement. The
Minister of Labour has referred this agreement to the Canadian
Industrial Relations Board for their review. No doubt some one from CN
has mentioned to someone in the Federal Government that the MOA may
now be an issue. Coincidently CN is a major financial contributor to
the Liberal Party.
CN now believes that the three Unions are bullies and are ganging up
on them. The real bully is the Company and when things do not go their
way then they cry "No Fair".
We are fighting all attempts to change this agreement with our Labour
Lawyers.
Your Negotiating Committee believes an Agreement can be reached, but
it will have to be shown to the Company that we have the support of
our Members.

An Agreement will be reached in the last few hours only if we can show
the Company that we are together, that we believe in fair negotiations
and that we have the resolve to stand up for our rights as a
Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is in a very important battle now and we have to show
them we stand united and strong. This will set precedent for future
rounds of negotiations. Remember our past Brothers who went on strike
in the 1950's for a five day work week.

In closing the Negotiation Committee of System Council #11 needs your
support in achieving a settlement. We are requesting that you give us
the only weapon that the Company understands, a possible work stoppage
when we exercise our legal right to Strike and potential financial
losses to the Company.

Together We Stand Divided We Fall


Fraternally




Kevin Kearns
Senior System General Chairman
IBEW Council #11
First District Canada

[CliqueofOne]

January 31st, 2005

UTU MEMBERSHIP CN RAIL - STRIKE MANDATE

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Your Union (over many, many months) has attempted, in good faith, to reach a Collective Agreement that meets the needs of the membership. Unfortunately CN Rail, in our opinion, has failed to address, in any meaningful way, your legitimate concerns.

Harassment and intimidation issues remain. Unprecedented and unwarranted discipline continues. The intrusion on your leisure time has escalated. The overall "Quality of Life" of the membership continues to be eroded.

As you may know the Canada Industrial Relations Board is currently considering the issue of "Essential Services". Until this matter is resolved the parties are prevented from exercising their respective right of strike/lockout.

Your Union has considered the uncertainty of the Board's timeline as any strike mandate, if granted, is only valid for 60 days. Although a prolonged delay by the Board may require a further strike mandate, your Union nevertheless believes it is important to be prepared in the event the Board issues an early decision.

Your Union believes it is now time for the membership to express its collective position on these negotiations. Therefore, consistent with Article 85 of the UTU Constitution, the General Chairpersons are respectfully requesting a strong strike mandate which, if necessary, will be applied against CN Rail.

Strike ballots will be sent by mail in Western and Eastern Canada and must be returned no later than the close of business February 28th, 2005. Strike ballots will be issued to each member. These ballots will be returned to the respective General Chairperson(s) Office for counting.

In the Central Canada Region (jurisdiction of General Chairperson R. B), strike ballots will be issued and counted by each Local. In this regard instructions will be issued by the General Chairperson to the Local Chairperson as to the voting process. Each Local will provide the membership with advance notice of their respective "Voting day(s)".

Strike ballots will be counted on March 1st, 2005.

Your support in achieving a strong strike mandate is respectfully requested.

Fraternally and in Solidarity,

Original memo signed by:
R. B
R.LeBel
B. Boechler

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Isn't scabs illegal in Canada? I could have sworn it was but don't know for sure.

Maybe CN should attempt meaningful bargaining before hiring scabs. Just a thought.

I don't undertand what evidence is there that CN hasn't attempted meaningful bargaining? Is there any evidence that union is being anymore reasonable in the negotiations or is the union automatically in the right and CN automatically in the wrong? I think its quite reasonable (if not common) for two parties to both negotiate in good faith and yet have difficulty in coming to an agreement