 |
October 15, 2001
Umpire rules on dispute between BCNU and UPN over bargaining process
UPN found in violation for conducting unilateral negotiations and canceling scheduled bargaining dates
The Umpire charged with investigating breaches of the articles of association which govern bargaining by the Public Service Nurses’ Bargaining Association has found that the UPN violated the articles by bargaining unilaterally with the employer and by cancelling bargaining dates without consulting the BCNU and in a manner which did not follow proper process.
In the case of unilateral bargaining, UPN argued that what took place at a meeting between the UPN spokesman and two employer representatives did not constitute bargaining. However, the umpire disagreed, stating that bargaining in this context must have a broad definition.
Regarding the cancellation of bargaining dates by UPN, the Umpire found that the decision to cancel bargaining dates could only occur "after an attempt at consensus, which necessarily requires, at a minimum, consultation." Neither the consultation, nor consensus with BCNU took place, so the Umpire found the dates were improperly cancelled.
Also at issue, was whether BCNU was entitled to have two elected representatives as well as a staff resource person on the bargaining committee. Under the Articles of Association, UPN gets four representatives and BCNU gets two. However, the Umpire pointed out that the parties have accepted that the Chief Spokesperson, although he comes from the majority union [UPN] in the relationship, does not count as one of the majority union’s Committee members. "On the basis of that practice, when an issue specific to the minority union [BCNU] arises, it is entitled to name as its spokesperson, anyone it chooses, and that person can be in addition to their two Committee members.
For bargaining that does not address an issue specific to BCNU, only two BCNU representatives are to be present.
|
 |
|
