3 ms·
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 ar
by 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 agoThe 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 agoSomeone did and then immediately after workers stopped accepting overtimes shifts at all. It's obviously a collective action at that point.
- fencepost 4y agoRight, 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.'