6 ms·

> which calls for workers to stop volunteering at one location, which is being interpreted as a call for a strike No, this is called "working to rule". You don

by mabbo 4y ago

> which calls for workers to stop volunteering at one location, which is being interpreted as a call for a strike No, this is called "working to rule". You don't do anything more than your contract stipulates you must. What I suspect is happening is that the company has to pay more, or it somehow is not in their interest, when it's mandatory rather than voluntary overtime, so they're threatening people for not volunteering.

refurb 4y ago
No, read the details. Their collective agreement has a process for requiring overtime if no volunteers. The union is saying "don't volunteer" so the courts are saying "ok, that's a strike since you aren't following the collective agreement".
- fencepost 4y ago
  The union is saying "don't volunteer" so the courts are saying "ok, that's a strike since you aren't following the collective agreement". It's not clear from this that the union is saying any such thing. Someone is saying not to volunteer but it's not clear who or why.
  - mrkstu 4y ago
    Someone did and then immediately after workers stopped accepting overtimes shifts at all. It's obviously a collective action at that point.
    - fencepost 4y ago
      Right, the contention brought to the labor board was that it was a collective action that went against the contract. It's not clear that the union as an entity was involved in that collective action. Edit: expanding a bit, laws around collective bargaining include elements around not having to deal with multiple entities - if a union is representing workers, it's THE entity representing workers. If workers have a problem with the union they need to handle that internally, but they don't get to say 'the second shift guys decided they want to negotiate separately, so now you have to go negotiate with them as well.'
lesuorac 4y ago
> No, this is called "working to rule". You don't do anything more than your contract stipulates you must. Working to rule isn't an Ontario legal concept. Collectively agreeing to restrict the output (i.e. working to rule) is a Strike. [1]> “strike” includes a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding, or a slow-down or other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output; (“grève”) [1]: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/95l01 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/95l01
- prmoustache 4y ago
  It is not a strike if they are working normal -non overtime- hours.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    I don't know what part of "other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output" you don't understand.
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      Did they do any concerted activity to prevented their employer to hire more people?
    - drewcoo 4y ago
      By not working 24 hour shifts when asked, workers "restrict or limit output." Surely that can't be the intent of those words. They're about trying to prohibit slowdowns, which are a sort of soft strike. https://archive.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/directaction/1/ https://archive.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/directactio...
      - lesuorac 4y ago
        Stick with the example on hand and not make stuff up about 24h shifts. > Surely that can't be the intent of those words. Then why is the labor board ruling the way they are? The workers used to work OT and then none of them do. That certainly causes a reduction in output. I could see it not being concerted if this was over the corse of a month (or maybe a week) where they all independent arrived at the conclusion they didn't want to work OT but everybody on the same day (ignoring the alleged letter) is a forgone conclusion. This would be like enforcing a dress code the day after people wear a pro-union shirt into the factory. Sure, the dress code doesn't explicitly say it's to stop unionization but the fact that it occurs the day after makes it a forgone conclusion. > They're about trying to prohibit slowdowns, which are a sort of soft strike. Interesting word (strike) to end the sentence with. However, it doesn't matter what the layman's term is, Strike has a legal definition and that's all that matters. Is there a concerted activity to reduce output? Yes, collectively none of the workers are willing to do OT anymore starting the same day.

by mabbo 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

No, read the details. Their collective agreement has a process for requiring overtime if no volunteers. The union is saying "don't volunteer" so the courts are saying "ok, that's a strike since you aren't following the collective agreement".

fencepost 4y ago
The union is saying "don't volunteer" so the courts are saying "ok, that's a strike since you aren't following the collective agreement". It's not clear from this that the union is saying any such thing. Someone is saying not to volunteer but it's not clear who or why.
- mrkstu 4y ago
  Someone did and then immediately after workers stopped accepting overtimes shifts at all. It's obviously a collective action at that point.
  - fencepost 4y ago
    Right, the contention brought to the labor board was that it was a collective action that went against the contract. It's not clear that the union as an entity was involved in that collective action. Edit: expanding a bit, laws around collective bargaining include elements around not having to deal with multiple entities - if a union is representing workers, it's THE entity representing workers. If workers have a problem with the union they need to handle that internally, but they don't get to say 'the second shift guys decided they want to negotiate separately, so now you have to go negotiate with them as well.'

lesuorac 4y ago

> No, this is called "working to rule". You don't do anything more than your contract stipulates you must. Working to rule isn't an Ontario legal concept. Collectively agreeing to restrict the output (i.e. working to rule) is a Strike. [1]> “strike” includes a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding, or a slow-down or other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output; (“grève”) [1]: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/95l01 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/95l01

prmoustache 4y ago
It is not a strike if they are working normal -non overtime- hours.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I don't know what part of "other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output" you don't understand.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    Did they do any concerted activity to prevented their employer to hire more people?
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    By not working 24 hour shifts when asked, workers "restrict or limit output." Surely that can't be the intent of those words. They're about trying to prohibit slowdowns, which are a sort of soft strike. https://archive.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/directaction/1/ https://archive.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/directactio...
    - lesuorac 4y ago
      Stick with the example on hand and not make stuff up about 24h shifts. > Surely that can't be the intent of those words. Then why is the labor board ruling the way they are? The workers used to work OT and then none of them do. That certainly causes a reduction in output. I could see it not being concerted if this was over the corse of a month (or maybe a week) where they all independent arrived at the conclusion they didn't want to work OT but everybody on the same day (ignoring the alleged letter) is a forgone conclusion. This would be like enforcing a dress code the day after people wear a pro-union shirt into the factory. Sure, the dress code doesn't explicitly say it's to stop unionization but the fact that it occurs the day after makes it a forgone conclusion. > They're about trying to prohibit slowdowns, which are a sort of soft strike. Interesting word (strike) to end the sentence with. However, it doesn't matter what the layman's term is, Strike has a legal definition and that's all that matters. Is there a concerted activity to reduce output? Yes, collectively none of the workers are willing to do OT anymore starting the same day.