CLRCS Executive-Director Jennifer Lavallee has indicated in an email blast that she has informed both OP{SEU 472 and the ministry-appointed conciliation officer of her intent to return to the bargaining table, that is if she was ever truly at it in the first place.
But who is this conciliation officer and where are they? And what exactly, if anything, do they actually do to advance the state of negotiations between the two parties of the dispute?
It’s important to note that management’s assertion notwithstanding, the parties actually returning to the table depends on both sides agreeing to resume negotiations and on whether they believe meaningful bargaining can occur. Public statements like this expressing a willingness to bargain do not, by themselves, establish that either side is bargaining in good faith. That depends on the parties’ conduct at the table and the proposals they are prepared to discuss. But to establish that, we need to see them at the table.
Management can say whatever management wants to say, and they can attempt to present themselves as some sort of reasonable moderates, but there are many people out there that see just another smokescreen coming from one side of the dispute. They see, despite the statement, a perceived strategy of not talking to the union at all, doing so by telegraphing in advance what can and can’t be talked about at the table. Since there aren’t many negotiators out there likely to agree to showing up after being told what the topics are and aren’t, the union is likely not taking the “offer” seriously. And management must know this in advance. That’s why it’s easy for some to speculate that they advanced non-negotiable positions knowing the union would never agree. And thus, the next step can be taken, that is to blame the union itself for the hold-up.
As to that ministry-appointed conciliation officer, here’s what such a person cannot do:
- Force either side to bargain or come to the table
- Order either side to accept proposals
- Impose a collective agreement
- Determine whether either side is bargaining in good or bad faith
- Rule on unfair labour practice allegations
I will state that such a conciliation officer, operating out of a special place at the Ministry of Labour, is somebody trained especially for the role they undertake, which is essentially to attempt to bring the parties together and keep them together until an agreement is reached. They are intended to be neutral parties, although some will question their validity since they’ve been appointed by one of the main parties of the dispute, that being the Ontario government. So some may see a conflict of interest in the whole business.
I’m not questioning anyone’s integrity here as a conciliation officer. But we only have to look south of the border to see how institutions have been corrupted, even weaponized, by the very government that controls the purse strings. Doug Ford has shown on numerous occasions that he’s more than willing to attempt end-runs around political opponents, something he considers public-sector unions to be. He’ll kiss ass with auto and steel workers, but seems to prefer kicking ass when it comes to the “folks” on his own payroll.
So, the fact that the conciliation officer is “supposed” to be neutral isn’t the same thing as a guarantee. That conciliation officer is a person just like the rest of us, subject to all the good and bad things in life. As a human being, he/she is subject to all the possible failures and challenges that are part of the human condition. Is such a person, therefore, vulnerable to pressure from the same government that signs their pay cheque? What kind of job security do they have? How vulnerable are they to potential pay-back for not being conciliatory-enough towards what may appear to be the machinations of management?
After listing what the conciliation officer can’t do, it makes me wonder what the hell is left for them to do? Arrange the flowers? Maybe tidy up a bit before the parties arrive? Sharpen the pencils? Get the coffee on? Make sure there’s plenty of pizza on hand?
Because other than that I see an empty suit sitting there, more money spent by the government to advance absolutely nothing that approaches the feel of fairness or good faith.
It smacks of political window-dressing. An easy thing to say, but nothing really behind it.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 