After more than 17 weeks in some cases, braving temperatures that dipped into the sub 40s if you don’t count the wind-chill, education workers represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Fort McMurray and Edmonton reached settlement agreements yesterday.
The three mediated agreements between negotiators for CUPE’s locals and the Edmonton Public, Fort McMurray Public and Fort McMurray Catholic school districts are expected to set a pattern that will allow the remaining strikes by educational support workers to be quickly resolved, the union indicated in a statement yesterday.
CUPE Alberta President Rory Gill called the agreements a victory over Alberta’s United Conservative Party Government. “Danielle Smith set out to crush us and we stood up, fought back, and won,” he said this morning.
The settlements in Fort Mac and Edmonton will end the strikes at the three school districts if they are ratified by the locals’ members. In the meantime, CUPE said, picket lines will come down.
About 1,000 members of CUPE Local 2545 and Local 2559 were on strike in Fort McMurray. They began rotating strikes on Nov. 13 and moved to a full strike soon after. Another approximately 3,000 CUPE 3550 members at the Edmonton Public School District have been on strike since Jan. 13.
If ratified by local members, all three agreements will run until August 2028.
Mr. Gill praised the workers’ courage. “Their fortitude, their determination, and their solidarity won the day,” he said in the union statement. “They finally won the respect they deserve.”
He said in yesterday’s news release that he expects bargaining representatives of another 2,600 support workers on strike against the Calgary, Sturgeon County, Parkland County, Foothills and Black Gold school divisions to quickly return to the bargaining table and achieve settlements. The Black Gold School Division has schools in Beaumont, Calmar, Devon, Leduc, Leduc County, New Sarepta, Thorsby and Warburg.
As is a normal practice in Canadian labour relations, CUPE will not release details of the agreements until the members have seen them. Mr. Gill said in the release, however, that “all three deals have wage agreements that are higher than the original wage mandates imposed by the Alberta Government.”
CUPE said the workers in Fort McMurray will vote on the proposed agreement over 24 hours beginning tomorrow. At Edmonton Public Schools the vote will take place today or tomorrow, the union said yesterday.
Bravo to these brave folks who had to picket in sub zero temperatures for weeks on end to get only what they deserve.
Quite a contrast to Marlaina and company who voted to give themselves raises a few months ago.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
It is my understanding that the government of Alberta can and does impose “secret” upper limits to what can be offered by public sector employers, including school boards, to their employees including teachers, educational assistants etc. It is my understanding that these limits cannot be disclosed to the employees or to the unions representing them in the negotiation of wages, working conditions and so forth. Is that a correct understanding of the situation?
If this is correct, I am wondering if mediators are told of these upper limits and, if they are told, whether or not they bound by them.
Back in the old days when I was at Alberta Ed, I believe that each school board negotiated individually with teachers and other employees through their unions. At that time, I think that each school jurisdiction set its own mil rate. The province also provided some extra funding is special situations such as the ?Northlands? school jurisdiction where the small school age population was widely spread out over a large area,, resulting in high transportation costs. I think that, later, all negotiations were through the province for a while. It seems that the system has again changed to the system we have now.
Christina: Your understanding about “secret bargaining mandates” is entirely correct. The Public Sector Employers Act passed by the Kenney Government in 2019 permits the finance minister to issue secret mandates to employers which dictate what they can offer or agree to during bargaining. See section 3 and section 4. Clearly this is unconstitutional as it interferes with collective bargaining, which the Supreme Court of Canada has found to be a violation of section 2 (b) and 2 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, see Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, et al. v. Saskatchewan. DJC
Could it be that the UCP is finally learning that they will be destroyed because Queen Danielle has lead to self-destruction, for the sake of her own enrichment.
But will this save them? It better not. Everyone better remember all the shite they caused.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
Thanks for the answer, DJC. Are mediators told what these secret mandates are and, if so, are they bound by them? Or is this a question that the public does not know the answer to? In other words, is that secret, too?
I cannot see how this could be constitutional either. It certainly is unfair to hobble the bargaining process before it even begins. Another way to disadvantage unions who represent employees. It makes you wonder if employees ever get a fair shake from the UCP government. I suppose the UCP would be all-in on “right to work”.
Christina: I am not confident that my answer to your second question, about Mediators, is correct. I want to check it tomorrow if I get a chance. I believe that they are not. Indeed, if they were, (a) they would have to be told and the legislation would have to be written to permit that, and (b) surely none of them would agree to work under such circumstances. Yes, the UCP is all in on right-to-work. They are hobbled, however, by the fact the rule of law still exists in Canada, unlike, apparently, our next door neighbour. I will get back to you on this. DJC
Christina: Well, I have checked with a real expert this morning and I was wrong: The employer cannot exceed the government mandate, whether or not there is a mediator. This leads to unions telling the employer to go tell the government to revise its mandate – which must be what happened in this case – and employers responding to direct questions about why they have rejected a union proposal with silliness like, “Sorry, I am not allowed to tell you.” DJC
Hi DJC,
Thanks. I would think that your ideas seem reasonable, but who knows with this government?