Rank-and-file members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada (ILWU) in British Columbia have voted down an employment agreement foisted on them by a government mediator.
The union initially decided not to send the deal to the membership for ratification, but eventually caved under threat of government “back-to-work” legislation. The proposed four-year agreement — the term desired by employers, not the union — between the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA) and the ILWU was reluctantly put to a vote of more than 7400 workers on July 28 and 29, after union representatives presented the deal to local chapters.
In response to the members’ vote, union president Rob Ashton posted a letter on social media saying workers were calling on their direct employers to “come to the table” and negotiate, instead of doing so through the BCMEA. The BCMEA’s stance throughout the dispute indicates they prefer to avoid bargaining in good faith because they are counting on the federal Liberal government to break the strike and force workers back to work.
In response to Ashton’s letter, federal Labour minister Seamus O’Regan immediately released a statement saying the federal government was “prepared for all options” to end the strike, once again hinting at the possibility of back-to-work legislation. O’Regan also raised the prospect of imposing an agreement and said he had directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) to decide whether the rank-and-file’s rejection means a negotiated agreement was now impossible.
“If the Board determines that to be the case, I have directed them to either impose a new collective agreement on the parties or impose final binding arbitration to resolve outstanding terms of the collective agreement,” he said.
The CIRB declared the union’s resumption of its strike illegal, a distortion of Canadian labour law and strike precedent. Their reasoning was that the union had not given 72-hours’ notice when it put pickets back up after deciding not to send the deal to members, as I reported previously. However, the union maintains this was a continuation of the strike and did not require additional notice. The union gave 72-hours’ notice at the start of the strike in early July.
Clearly this deal did not meet workers’ needs. We do know that it was a four-year agreement, but beyond that the details have not been released. We can assume it fell short on key issues such as pay, automation and job security, as well as contracting out.
Predictably, calls from capital, employers’ associations, independent business and politicians for back-to-work legislation ramped up again after the union’s vote. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) called the rejection of the deal “irresponsible” and pressed the government to break the strike: “If the union issues another 72-hour strike notice, government will have to immediately introduce back-to-work legislation.”
Bridgitte Anderson, president and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, renewed the call for government strikebreaking and even hinted at the government giving itself new powers to break future strikes: “It is time for the federal government and opposition parties to intervene to ensure that our ports stay open, and we can avoid needlessly stoking inflation and affecting other union and non-union jobs. It is also clear that the federal government needs additional tools to facilitate lasting agreements when labour disruptions affect the entire economy.”
BC Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Fiona Famulak also stoked the fires of government strikebreaking: “The rejection of a second tentative agreement demonstrates the need for the federal government to play an even stronger role in bringing this dispute to an end.”
Conservative federal opposition leader Pierre Poilievre took his usual bombastic approach and sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calling on him to sack O’Regan, saying the Labour minister’s job is “to end the strike”.
Rank-and-file dockworkers have taken a strong and courageous stand against employers in the face of concerted state/capital threats. They have also sent a powerful message of rank-and-file unity and strength to their wavering union leadership.