Chris Schnurr
Carol Kosowan LL.B., B.A. (Law), B.A. (Policy)
Councillor Halberstadt Flips on Arbitration
In a shocking revelation today, Councillor Halberstadt is suggesting that garbage collection be deemed an “essential service.”
At least one city councillor says it’s time to either contract out garbage collection or have it declared an essential service — an idea a CUPE union leader suggests is possible.
Coun. Alan Halberstadt said a much-anticipated report released by city administration Friday afternoon, looking at the feasibility of contracting out some city services, indicates savings are possible but also notes that the changeover would be complicated.
“I’m not sure if I will support contracting out services,” said Halberstadt, who has several questions to ask when the report goes to council next Monday. “But what I am sure about is that I don’t want our citizens to be held hostage ever again, like we were in the summer with garbage collection. So I’d like to see it resolved one way or another.
Come again?
Consistently, as evidenced in the in-camera meeting minutes during the CUPE strike, Councillor Halberstadt voted against sending the issues to arbitration.
Making a service an essential service, automatically means the issues are sent to arbitration – a fact the councillor confirmed on his blog:
City Council voted unanimously (Counc. Ron Jones was absent) to reject the arbitration route, and some people are asking why. A couple of years ago, I taught a course in municipal government at St. Clair College, and one of my classes was on interest arbitration, the provincial process used to settle contract disputes between municipalities and their police and fire associations.
Firefighting and police work are deemed essential services so arbitration has to be used instead of strikes to settle contract disputes. The work of other municipal workers is not deemed essential, thus strikes are permitted.
Municipalities have been complaining for years about the one-sided nature of the arbitration system, which heavily favours the employee groups. The arbitrators invariably make decisions based on bargaining patterns across Ontario as opposed to giving credence to arguments from the employers that taxpayers cannot afford rich contracts.
So forgive me if I am confused.
If the councillor was worried about CUPE holding the city hostage during the strike – arbitration would have settled that issue.
But now, after a 101-day prolonged strike whereby CUPE was holding residents “hostage”, arbitration is now acceptable?
I have criticized the councillor in the past for not being consistent, or more simply, saying one thing in public, but voting another way at council – but this one really takes the cake.
Does the councillor even fully appreciate that what he has proposed, contradicts his very stance during the strike?
Cheerleader for Secrecy: Chris Vander Doelen
I wonder if Robert Cribb, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists in 2001, would hand Mr. Vander Doelen the Code of Silence Award for his justification for secrecy in municipal corporations.
I guess it depends if you’re attacking a Liberal government or in the case of Windsor, applauding the entrenchment of secrecy in our municipality.
Way back in 2001 Mr. Vander Doelen wrote:
Robert Cribb, president of the CAJ’s 1,500 members (I used to be one) says the award will honour governments at all levels for “keeping vital information hidden from the public, stalling or denying access to information requests, destroying documents and upholding a strict code of silence.
“The deep commitment many civil servants have to keeping information locked away from the public — the very people who own the information – has gone unrecognized long enough,” Cribb said in a news release.
“By protecting us from nasty or controversial information . . . they display an abiding sense of paternalism and self-preservation. We salute them.”
Hear, hear. It’s high time someone recognized outstanding weaselry. Of course, it would be much better if the award honoured the politicians who mould government in their image. Unfortunately we have allowed politicians to pass laws preventing that.
Perhaps by coincidence, a few hours after the CAJ’s announcement, Canada’s Auditor-General released a report which could hand Mr. Cribb his first winners.
But today in his column, Mr. Vander Doelen justifies actions taken by our Mayor and council to entrench secrecy with respect to the Tunnel Corporation:
Critics, not all of whom have the City of Windsor’s best interests at heart, say the new corporation won’t be as “transparent” as the old tunnel commission. That is very true.
The new tunnel will be run as a business, and that business has relentless competitors who take no prisoners.
In this case, a little secrecy could save taxpayers a ton of money — or make it for them.
Who are these alleged critics, Mr. Vander Doelen, “not all of whom” have the City’s best interest at heart? Either it is true, proven by fact, or simply an attempt, to cause question of the credibility of anyone who criticizes our municipal council.
And on the topic of secrecy – Enwin and most recently, the The Windsor Airport Authority quickly come to mind. Recall the minutes acquired by a Star reporter through a Freedom of Information Requests were one giant blacked-out blob?
Also, remember that story by Don McArthur the Star never printed about the meeting at the newly created Windsor Airport Municipal Corporation – the same type of arrangement approved for the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel?
WINDSOR, Ont. — Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis kicked a Star reporter out of a Windsor Airport board meeting held in council chambers Tuesday afternoon, insisting that the meetings are and ought to be closed to the public.
Councillors – you know those elected representatives charged with providing oversight of all things municipal – are not even allowed to see valuation reports for the Tunnel performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2006 and not 2008 as claimed by Mr. Vander Doelen:
A valuation done in 2008 slapped an assumed value of $111,474,979 on the Canadian half of the tunnel, minus $7 million in receivables. The number doesn’t make any difference to Windsor unless it’s sold. It’s a book value. The law says there has to be one.
In the video below, Councillor Halberstadt finds out he’s not allowed to see the valuation report.
There’s a fine line between corporate secrecy and secrecy surrounding public assets – especially when taxpayer dollars are the mix.
And when it comes to determining the value of the tunnel amidst plunging traffic volumes – two years can make a difference in the value – particularly with DRIC claims the new government-owned bridge will suck about 25% of the already abysmally low traffic volumes from the tunnel.
Competitors? It sure looks like the DRIC will cannibalize the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I would be very surprised if the value attributed to the tunnel in 2008 of $111,000,000 was ‘book value’. And as for the $7million in accounts receivable, I would wonder who owes the tunnel that much, and for what?
Often when a business is sold the receivables are sold with it as part of the value, albeit normally with a guarantee from the seller for the value.
So did we get assets ( a promissory note) or did we get stock for the value of the tunnel, whatever value they used?
I don’t think that declaring garbage workers an essential service necessarily means that arbitration is automatic. Especially if they continue to be represented by the same union local.
When Federal or Provincial government employees go on strike, a certain percentage of unionized employees are deemed essential and are required to report to work. Their colleagues hit the picket line. Whatever agreement the union members agree to will apply to those deemed essential. There is no binding arbitration for those deemed essential.
Policing and firefighting is different in that they are deemed to be essential services by the province and all employees are usually represented by a single association. Also binding arbitration isn’t automatic. Both sides still have to attempt to negotiate a contract – and that included mediation. Binding arbitration kicks in after both sides agree that a negotiated agreement is not possible and mediation has failed.
That seems logical vincent – this article I found seems to explain it.
___________________________________
Essential services
FAQs: The right to strike across Canada
Last Updated May 6, 2008
CBC News
The government of Saskatchewan is hoping to enact new essential services legislation that would require bargaining units and employers to determine at least 90 days in advance of a strike which workers must remain on the job and maintain services during a work stoppage. Following an April 2008 transit strike, the city of Toronto is considering making the TTC an essential service, forcing workers to remain on the job even in the event of a strike action.
What does an essential service designation mean?
Essential services are those necessary to prevent danger to life, health or safety and disruption of the courts. Employees who are designated as having essential positions must continue to provide services during a strike.
Who can and cannot strike?
Essential service designation is different from legislation that prohibits the right to strike. For example, across Canada police, firefighters, and hospital employees don’t have the right to strike as stated in their collective agreements and their disputes must be settled through binding arbitration. But for most sectors considered essential, some workers can still go on strike while the employees whose positions are determined to be vital by their employer must continue to work.
Who decides what’s essential?
The Public Service Labour Relations Act designates which federal public employees will continue providing service in the event of a work stoppage.
The Canada Labour Code ensures other federal services like telecommunications, railways, banks, ports and national security are staffed during a strike action.
Provincially, it starts to get a little tricky. Each province has varying legislation and collective agreements to determine what services are essential.
How does it work in each province and territory?
Nova Scotia amended their Trade Union Act three years ago to replace the right to strike for police officers and firefighters with “interest arbitration.” The province is also proposing an act that would force health service sector workers to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute. Saskatchewan is proposing something similar.
Manitoba enforces essential services through the Essential Services Act, which specifies which public sector employees must continue to provide service during a strike. The province considers services like the department of finance, air ambulances, community living and the department of highways and transportation as essential.
Quebec’s Essential Services Council determines which employees are subject to restrictions barring them from withdrawing services completely. While public transit is not considered an essential service in Quebec, the council requires transit workers to provide normal service during rush hour and other times the council deems necessary.
In P.E.I. and Alberta, there is legislation that prevents hospital employees, the department of health and social services and police and firefighters from going on strike. Like many other provinces, including British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, their essential service legislation allows employers to designate positions that will continue to provide crucial services while a strike is taking place.
Legislation in Ontario requires that Crown employees and ambulance workers have an essential services agreement in place before a strike can begin so that certain services can continue.
In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the Public Service Act specifies that services deemed essential must ensure a continuation of minimal service in order to protect the health and safety of the public. The act also calls for senior employees of power plants to remain on the job.
The Yukon relies on federal legislation.
Is essential service designation bad for unions?
Unions worry about the implications of legislation and say that potentially undermines their bargaining power and takes away the right to strike. Critics of essential services legislation complain that a continuation of services lessens public pressure on the employer to end the work stoppage, resulting in longer strikes. However, lengthy strikes generally end in arbitration, which tends to yield more favourable contracts for employees than negotiations.
Is essential service designation good for taxpayers?
While the retention of essential services is beneficial for the public, lengthy strikes that end in arbitration can mean a bigger payout for union workers, which can be costly for taxpayers.
Chris, I asked that same question regarding mandatory arbitration for essential services and I was told that this might not be true in this case
If we declare water treatment plants and garbage an essential services it doesn’t necessarily mean they need to be fully staffed. Each service might have a skeleton crew while the rest of the bargaining unit bargains.
I don’t know if thats correct but that was the information I was told from someone who you’d think would be “in the know”