WINTER SHIFT BID

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

On June 23, 2013, the summer shift schedule came into effect. This scheduled was grieved by your Union, as it did not comply with the requirements of Article 17. The parties agreed to refer the matter to Arbitrator Foley and the matter was scheduled to be heard on October 10, 2013.

In August 2013, the parties reached an agreement to conduct the fall/winter shift early with an implementation date of September 8, 2013. The Union’s agreement was predicated on the agreed variants and compliance with the requirements of the Collective Agreement.

Following a mediation session with Arbitrator Vince Ready on September 20, 2013, the Company approached the Union and asked if we would be willing to further discuss the Article 17 grievance filed regarding the June 23, 2013 schedule, and attempt to resolve the matter between the parties, as opposed to arbitration. Given that the fall/winter 2013/2014 shift bid had already taken place and was compliant with Article 17, the Union agreed to defer the arbitration to a later date and attempt resolution, provided that the parties would meet on October 10, 2013 to discuss the matter.

On October 3, 2013, the Company approached the Union and indicated they were considering a further winter shift bid. A meeting was held on October 9, 2013 with the Company, where the Union advised that a shift bid was disruptive and unnecessary and offered solutions to the Company to address their operational concerns, that were in keeping with the collective agreement. The Company committed to exploring these options.

A meeting took place between the District and the Labour Relations on October 10, 2013, where the Union identified the issues in dispute with respect to Article 17 and proposed a potential remedy. To date, the Company has not responded. We are concerned that the same violations, which occurred in June 2013 will be repeated in the Company’s revised winter schedule.

No further dialogue occurred between the parties until October 29, 2013, when the Company notified the Union verbally of their intentions to post notice of a bid to the employees on Sunday, November 3, 2013.

We immediately communicated our objections, as there had been no response from the Company following our October 9, 2013 discussions, and no previous notice of the Company’s intentions.

The Union vehemently objects to the Company’s conduct and were completely blindsided by the Company’s actions on Friday, November 1, 2013. They did not have the courtesy to provide your Union with a copy of the communication issued late on a Friday afternoon, which only further aggravated the workplace and caused undue distress and conflict for employees.

We object to the Company’s characterization in their November 1, 2013 communication that “the Union was not supportive of this decision and will not participate in the shift bid”. We were never informed of the Company’s decision to proceed with a shift bid or that the solutions we offered were not considered viable by the Company.

Article 17.01 states that the parties will work together to make the shift schedules work to the benefit of both parties. Your Union has not been provided with the operational requirements, there has been no discussion or agreement on the variants or on how the bid will be conducted. We have not been provided the schedule and there are no details concerning the implementation or duration.

Your Union understands how disruptive frequent shift bids are to your work life balance, your family, your finances and other personal commitments.

The IAM & AW will file a grievance in response to the Company’s actions to pursue resolution, through grievance arbitration and any other means available to the IAM & AW.

We will advise the Membership of any developments in the above proceedings as soon as the information becomes available.

In Solidarity,

 

Tania Canniff, General Chairperson

Transportation District 140, IAM & AW

https://iamaw16.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WINTER-SHIFT-BID-2013-2014-VANCOUVER1.pdf