PSAC takes government to court over bargaining

PSAC takes government to court over bargaining; Union challenges call for border guard vote

---

The largest federal union is going to Federal Court to try to quash the Conservative government's decision to bypass the collective bargaining process by forcing Canada's border guards to vote on the government's last contract offer. 

The Public Service Alliance of Canada wants the court to set aside Heritage Minister James Moore's June 7 decision to order the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which he oversees, to call a secret vote on the May 6 offer to 8,600 border guards represented by the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU).

The CIU, whose bargaining team rejected the offer, is one of 17 unions under the PSAC umbrella. 

PSAC argues that Moore has no "factual or legal basis" for his decision because a strike he said would jeopardize public safety and security isn't even on the horizon. They argue the minister erred in law, acted "in a capricious manner" and based his decision on "erroneous findings of facts." 

The union also says that Moore failed to follow the principles of "natural justice" and "procedural fairness" by calling the vote before considering a newly released conciliation report by the Public Interest Commission that was supposed to provide the basis for further negotiations. 

Moore sought the vote at the request of Treasury Board President Tony Clement. The provision for such a vote was added to the Public Service Labour Relations Act in 2005, but until now it has never been used. Among unions, the move is seen as a hard-line tactic to thwart collective bargaining and chip away at their power. 

Matthew Conway, a spokesman for Clement, said the government won't comment on the challenge because it is before the courts. He said, however, that Treasury Board feels employees should have a chance to vote on the offer which is "reasonable and affordable" and addresses most of the parties' important issues. 

The move is a gamble, and many say the government must be confident that CIU members will vote for the deal. 

The union's court challenge could be seen as a sign it is worried it doesn't have the backing of its members, who could accept the vote and deal a damaging blow to the union leadership. CIU is one of the stronger and more militant unions and usually has its members' support.
CIU president Jean-Pierre Fortin said the challenge is about the broader principles of collective bargaining rights at stake in this case. The union has asked for an expedited hearing, but Fortin said it is proceeding as if the vote will go ahead. 

"If we let this vote go by unchallenged, then the entire concept of collective bargaining will be in play for the future," he said. 

Fortin said Moore intervened too early and didn't give the bargaining process a chance to work. He said the two parties should have gone back to the table to discuss the commission's conciliation report and to try to negotiate a settlement. 

Instead, two days after the report was issued on June 5, Moore asked the board to call a vote for later this month. 

In his order, Moore said he was calling a vote in the "public interest" because of the "current fiscal environment, the potential safety and national security risks and the significant financial repercussions" Canada would face in the event of a strike. 

A strike, however, is at least several months away. The union hasn't yet held a strike vote, and it is still haggling with the government over the essential services agreement that designates employees and tasks that are required to ensure the public's safety and security. That agreement must be approved by the Public Service Labour Relations Board and be in place before a strike can be called. 

The two sides have been negotiating for two years and went to conciliation in December 2012 to help bridge their differences. A conciliation report is not binding but provides a basis for a possible settlement.

---

Ottawa Citizen
PAGE:	A2
DATE:	2013.06.15