Another day, another email from the Executive-Director, sent as usual to a closed in-house email chain. As she surely knows that email chain has had its security compromised, so must also be aware that the contents would be “leaked.” In the biz we once called this kind of thing a “plant” because we knew it was going to end up in certain hands.
I can’t say if this is a plant or not, but there is some text that can be worked with, and so I shall make the attempt to comment on it, hopefully fairly.
Nine points are made by the Executive-Director to dispel the “myths” that are out there relative to her positions on a variety of things. It’s not like she communicates publicly or anything, so all we have are these periodic emails that we’re not actually invited to. So when it comes to the Executive-Director, what she might be thinking has always been a swing-and-myth proposition.
Each point is itemized and italicized, and when possible, commentary follows. The bold-face text, other than the COMMENTARY sections, is part of the original document.
1. We haven’t bargained since January 7, 2026. Despite CLRCS repeatedly asking for dates to negotiate, we have never even met with the OPSEU rep that was assigned back in March. No bargaining has taken place since back in January.
2. We offered to mediate on August 4. We offered to meet with the union and our mediator on Aug. 4. The union did not agree.
COMMENTARY
It looks like this one has been attended to. According to another, more recent email, the two parties have agreed to meet sometime next week with yet a different mediator than any of the other previously-known candidates.
3. We have agreed on a mediator. We are relieved to report that the Union has agreed to meet with Sandra Shime, an experienced mediator from the Ministry of Labour. Wednesday was proposed but the union has very limited availability next week. We are awaiting confirmation of the earliest mutually available date to get back to the table.
COMMENTARY
A mediator from the Ministry of Labour? That’s a bit of a climb-down on the union’s part, but then again, somebody has to start the process of climbing down from entrenched positions. The union has “limited availability” this week? It’s hard for me to picture what might be more important than the very thing they’ve been demanding this entire time suddenly happens. And when it does, they’re busy? Is this true or is this some random finger-pointing?
4. CLRCS has offered reasonable increases. We have offered a $2.25 increase – this amounts to approximately 2.25% per year on average. Our offer is aligned with the negotiated increases at many other agencies in our sector over the past 6 months.
By contrast, the union is asking for a $6.50 increase (that’s a 25% increase). That’s on top of the 16% increase they received between 2021 and 2024. In short, the union’s demand would amount to a 40% increase since 2021. There is no precedent for that and it’s not a reasonable demand.
COMMENTARY
Okay, so where do these numbers come from? Is there a wage timeline available that would show and demonstrate your claims in a manner that the rest of us can understand? This is the muddiest part of the entire process with numbers being tossed about by both sides, but with nothing really concrete to look at to help with the understanding aspect.
Did the workers get the Bill 124 remedy payout? If so, when, and how much? I know there’;s that signed letter of understanding, but even that is contentious when different parties interpret it. If they didn’t, in fact, receive that payment, they ought to have and should now. That shell game articulated in the letter of understanding further obfuscates this issue. It almost looks like the two sides cut some sort of side-deal around the Bill 124 money. I honestly had no idea that kind of thing would be allowed.
Somebody, somewhere, needs to attempt to make their positions make sense to the rest of us. We want fairness and justice, but we appear to need additional information to be able to weigh in credibly on this point. Since it’s such an important issue, I think both sides should provide evidence, in addition to the letter of understand g, to support their positions on this. The two main local leaders were both at that table when that letter was signed. I guess they never thought before signing to make sure that each side agreed with the other as to what the letter actually meant.
5. CLRCS has not proposed removing union rights from the agreement. CLRCS has not proposed removing union schedule rights from the collective agreement. In fact, there are no rights in the collective agreement for certain workers to be exempt from evening or weekend work. The union is insisting on adding such exemptions to the agreement.
COMMENTARY
The union is insisting upon this inclusion because they have more than probable cause to believe that you’re already implementing structural changes to working conditions and shift lengths. Say what you like in your email Executive-Director, but I’m of the opinion this its exactly what’s at play here. From what I understand, those replacement workers are all working 12 hour shifts, which seems to part of your operational vision for workers. How many of your managers work 12 hour shifts? How many 12-hour shifts do you pull down? It appears to me you simply don’t want to extend these “rights” to the workers because it’ll mess up your grand design of structural change.
6. CLRCS respects seniority and preferences in scheduling. CLRCS respects seniority. CLRCS has already committed to granting schedule rotations based on employee preference in order of seniority within each program and classification.
COMMENTARY
As you should.
7. CLRCS has not proposed reducing wage rates for any employee. CLRCS has not proposed reductions to wage rates for senior staff. In fact, no staff would see a reduction in wage rates.
COMMENTARY
All they would see is a dramatic reduction in opportunities for advancement, the kind of advancement that leads to salary increases for any employee impacted. Less opportunity to advance also spells a reduction in fully-qualified staff to work the mission. And your alleged intention to completely remove the Level 3 classification of worker smells like it’s taking money away from a sector of the workforce that has Level 3 and throwing cold water on the lower wage levels who might aspire to Level 3 status.
8. CLRCS has never indicated that our community participation support program (CPS) programs are closing. In fact, we havecommunicated our intention to expand the scope of our CPS programs to include more evenings and weekend support consistent with the interests of the people we support. This will not reduce existing hours of support for the people we serve.
COMMENTARY
Existing hours as they are now? Or existing hours as they existed before the strike? How about existing hours prior to the pandemic? Because no matter what is said, the fact of the matter is that this day program is nothing like it once was and is now a shadow of its former self. Is that simply benign neglect or part of something intentional?
9. I have never closed a day program at CLRCS or any another agency. Despite false allegations that are circulating, I have never closed a day program at this agency or any other agency. The day program at CLRCS has not operated in that capacity since the start of the pandemic, prior to my employment. The day program at an agency in Pembroke closed prior to my employment there.
COMMENTARY
False allegations are, indeed, not cool. You say you’ve never closed a day program here or anywhere else. Fair enough. But two things remain on this point.
First, in Pembroke, the claim is made that program was cancelled prior to the Executive-Director’s arrival. If true, then those allegations are indeed false. But just to make a minor point, once she did take over the reins, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of her making any effort to reconstitute it. And I can’t imagine the peoples of Pembroke needing such a program any less than the people of Renfrew and Arnprior.
Secondly, the claim seems to be additionally made to the deterioration of the day program here since the pandemic, something that got its start before the Executive-Director took over command here. But this time, I don’;t feel she gets to play that card twice. Maybe in Pembroke, but not here. The Executive-Director must take things as she finds them, for better or worse, and to make every effort to improve upon them. It’s not good leadership to come in and see something in a deteriorated state, and simply sit back and allow it to die because it suits a convenience. And you don’t get to sit back and intentionally let it wither on a vine yet claim it’s not your responsibility because the deterioration began with the previous regime.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 