As the wife of a locked out United Steelworkers Local 816 member at LafargeHolcim [“No end in sight for Texada Island quarry lockout,” November 30], I am compelled to set the record straight.
LafargeHolcim communications director Jennifer Lewis’ comment “the company had no option but to move to a lock out situation” is a complete fabrication and misconstrues the facts. Yes, unionized employees of LafargeHolcim did serve strike notice, however, their action was merely a ban on overtime. They all still worked their posted shifts without any disruption to production.
Yes, Lewis is correct when she stated the union rejected the company’s offer without a vote, but what she fails to mention is that the bargaining committee is comprised of members who are voted in by their union brothers and sisters, trusting the committee to speak on their behalf and to make basic decisions for the whole. At such time as a respectable offer is presented, the committee would then take it back to its members for a vote.
With its offer, the employer has alluded it has room in its bottom line to put forward some minor increases to wage and benefit packages. But at what cost? Does the employer really think it can buy the member’s seniority rights with a minimal incremental wage and benefit package?
Lewis also states the offer “may have an impact on the application of seniority with respect to assignment of work.” She further explained that “the current offer reduces the current 22 classifications down to three and that anyone in the classification can be assigned to a job the company determines they are qualified to do.”
The implication of removing the seniority clause is that when it comes to everyday production, the employer can pick and choose what your job will be for the day. The employer has used the term “efficiency” to the union, so if the employer felt you weren’t working efficiently that day, they could take you off that job.
Who defines efficient? What standards are used to measure efficiency? The longer a worker spends at a specific job, the more experience they gain and the more efficient they become. For the employer to throw out a catch phrase is another way of saying it wants the control to say who does what. How efficient are you going to be if you and the employer don’t always see eye to eye?
It should be noted that since the start of the lockout on October 17, the union has filed complaints with the Labour Relation Board against LafargeHolcim on three separate occasions. The complaints spoke to the employer violating the Labour Relations Code with respect to the ongoing use of replacement workers. On all three occasions, the Labour Relations Board has ruled in favour of the union.
Not only does the employer not understand how to bargain in good faith, it can’t even lockout in good faith.
This is not a stance against wage increases or increases to the benefit package. This is a fight for members’ fundamental rights for seniority.
Heidi Gable is a member of CUPE, Local 476, and the wife of a United Steelworkers, Local 816, member.
