It appears we’re going to be treated to a textbook example of how communications often deteriorate during a labour dispute as both sides dig into positions that run at cross-purposes to one another, sometimes to the point where you’re often driven to wonder if it’s intentional.
And sometimes it is.
People say things. They say half-things. They leave things out. They omit things. Sometimes it even carries the impression that people are not being entirely straight with us.
As a commentator, it’s difficult to come up the middle lane of objectivity and professional neutrality when the parties to the disputes don’t want to say anything at all or comment using well-worn talking points. When there is some form of communication, it’s like there has to be some built-in suspicion of the message. Often-times information will not be fulsome, as in provided in the totality of its context. So you’re treated to snippets of this and that, and dollops of the other thing, but there’s often something obscured, or left out, often something that would be uncomplimentary to their stated positions.
It makes attempting to get to the bottom of things a challenge. So someone in my position is left with the analysis of what does come out, or leak out, or even leak out on purpose.
It’s a hell of a hobby.
Today I want to look briefly at the whole “who’s not talking to who” argument. For the most part I’ve been of the opinion that it was management that wasn’t talking, and I may still be correct in that. But I also don’t want to come across as incredibly naive, so I guess I have to treat all communications, from either party, with the same critical lens.
And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Both sides appear to be feeling the pressure to respond to accusations of not wanting to go to the table, and to accusations that they’re the ones blocking such a thing from happening.
So now we’re at the point where each side says they’re more than willing to proceed in a talking process that allows for mediation. But, of course, now we’re going to argue as to what that mediation looks like, and who can be trusted to provide it.
It’s well-documented that OPSEU Provincial and its affected locals made an announcement not long ago urging the province and the agencies impacted across the province to join the union in a mass-mediation format. But the Executive-Director, in a recent email, indicates that she’s all for mediation herself, and even identifies a professional mediator that was available in the shorter term.
“CLRCS has never refused to mediate. In fact, we proposed mediation with Serge Gagnon (a respected conciliation officer and mediator), who is available on August 4, 2026. OPSEU has not agreed. Gerry Lee (a private mediator discussed by the parties) is not available for weeks. It is unfortunate that OPSEU is not even willing to try to negotiate with Serge given he is available on Tuesday.”
Jennifer Lavallee
Perhaps this Gerry Lee fellow is a top-notch mediator, and perhaps holding out for him would be ideal as a result of that. But the email says Mr. Lee is unavailable in the near term, so it’s proposed by management that Serge Gagnon serve as the mediator instead. Mr. Gagnon is described in the email as a “respected conciliation officer and mediator.” But I’ll also wager that Mr. Gagnon is an employee of the Ontario government, notwithstanding the respect he’s earned in the trenches of labour warfare.
It may well be that it’s this potential affiliation with the entity behind all of this happening in the first place — the provincial government — that has the union taking a pass on his availability.
Also, in a previous email, the Executive-Director indicated she was willing to sit down with the union and a “ministry conciliation officer.” I wonder if Mr. Gagnon was that same fellow? And there was no mention of a mediator that time out.
In the same email from late last week, there was also this:
CLRCS is not the barrier to bargaining or mediation. In fact, OPSEU has put up obstacles and made mediation conditional on it being mass mediation, insists on a private mediator and mediation as a conduit to arbitration. It’s been more than 6 months since the union cancelled our last date – we don’t need barriers, we need bargaining!
Jennifer Lavallee
There is a point being made here by the Executive-Director, and it’s a good one, but sadly I don’t feel it works in her side’s favour.
Yes, now mediation has become the battleground, with both sides claiming a willingness to talk yet proposing formats that contain conditions that they know will be unpalatable to the other side. It’s a way of saying that you’re willing to talk while at the same time having the confidence of knowing the other side will never go for it, so therefore no talking.
It’s game-playing, and unfortunately all kinds of people do it.
First, I really don’t know how much of this whole mess can be resolved with local bargaining given the huge impact that inadequate funding has had on the sector. I’m assuming that much of what needs to be discussed is somehow directly or indirectly connected to the number of dollars coming through the hose. And the dollars are likely going to be dealt with at a provincial level, meaning that maybe there isn’t a hell of a lot to talk about at the local level, other than perhaps seniority and shift lengths, maybe address working conditions and staffing determinations. There are structural aspects of staffing that the Executive-Director seems to wish to impose on the system, and the union is of course pushing back against them. Perhaps it’s things like this that can be discussed, even if only in principle.
The Executive-Director is correct in her assertion that the union wants mass mediation as a conduit to arbitration. They want to hammer out agreements on as many issues as possible, doing so by dividing the issues up and establishing separate negotiating “tables” for each issue or each set of connected issues. Negotiations would proceed at each of these tables and agreements reached when possible.
But here’s the caveat.
Items not agreed to at the negotiating table are then pushed forward towards an arbitration format, where an arbitrator will settle the dispute after considering the arguments of both sides.
There is absolutely no way the Ford government is going to let this thing go to arbitration, and here come the politics again, for two reasons mainly.
First, the provincial government doesn’t want to lose control over the situation, not that their “control” over it has been exemplary to date. Secondly, an arbitrator would very likely rule against the Ford government, and that’s the thing with arbitration. It’s not a mutual compromise where everyone can claim some measure of victory. It’s a win-lose thing, where the arbitrator picks one of the two side’s position. So there are winners and losers. And the government doesn’t want to have a loss hung on them by some independent third party.
So, when we get right down to it, It appears to have devolved into “I don’t want to do it your way, and you don’t want to do it mine.” So I guess we’ll just keep sleep-walking our way through this until somebody decides to blink.
I honestly believe the union has the stronger option here. From a management or government point of view, I can’t imagine being afraid of what an arbitrator might decide if I legitimately believe my arguments to be the superior ones. Unless I’m afraid that some independent arbitrator is suddenly going to out me for intentionally underfunding the system in the first place.
In my view, the government has only two cards to play in this game, and both of them are cynical cards. TIME, as in keep this going until the other side cries “uncle.” And SILENCE, where you just shut your mouth, keep your head down, and let the TIME card do its work.
Playing these two cards is in no way an example of good, sound and responsible leadership. And it’s got nothing to do with good-faith bargaining. In my view, there is no good-faith coming from the government side. Plus they’ve got to feel pretty good with Executive-Directors around the province laying down smokescreens on the government’s behalf, all the better to hide behind while somebody else does their dirty work for them.
Bad-faith bargaining? No-faith bargaining?
Whatever the term, it has no place in any endeavour where people are suffering the negative impacts of a prolonged work stoppage that was provoked by the provincial government and appears to be aided and abetted by agency managers across the province.
It’s come to my attention that the union has issued a media release pertaining to mediation as recently as yesterday. I’ll have to look at that in greater detail before commenting, but at first glance, I can clearly see the name of a different mediator, a fellow by the name of William Kaplan. A poster on the OPSEU 472’s Facebook page says that the union is prepared to “front” the costs involved with this particular private mediator, whom the poster claims is “the best of the best.”
It appears that we’ve at least reached a stage where both sides are expressing a willingness to talk, and perhaps a stage where decisions made are a little more forthcoming, and a little more public. I understand no entity wants to negotiate in public and I understand why. I wouldn’t either if I was involved directly. But too much time has passed, and too many people have been hurt and will continue to hurt. And the public is beginning to take more than just a casual interest in what’s happening, or rather unfortunately, what’s not happening.
So while the general public will never be privy to the more granular details of negotiations, nor should they be, they’re now at the point where they want to look around for somebody to point a finger at. That’s what the public does. And that’s why it’s incumbent upon both parties to make an effort to communicate to the general public their intentions.
So far, at this point, and in my opinion, it’s been the union that’s been the more forthcoming. When they comment, it’s in the public domain, whether through their Facebook page or through media interviews. When management communicates, it seems to be solely through in-house emails directed to a specific and limited audience.
One is definitely more public-facing than the other.
FEATURE IMAGE VIA pic4free
NEWSMAGRENFREW 