Assignment 4 assesses your understanding, analysis, and practical application of the law as it relates to the exercise of bargaining rights.

Assignment 4 is worth 20% of your final grade. This assignment should be submitted after you have completed the readings and learning activities for Unit 6.

Assignment 4 assesses your understanding, analysis, and practical application of the law as it relates to the exercise of bargaining rights.

In Assignment 4, you are expected to analyze and form a number of conclusions on a case in which collective bargaining rights are tested, as they are so often, by an industrial dispute. Read the following case study, and study the questions that appear at the end of the case. Then, combine your answers to these questions in an essay that does not exceed 1,500 words.

Once you have successfully completed and submitted your assignment, you are welcome to contact your academic expert to find out what happened next in the case.

A Note on This Case

This case is summarized from an actual complaint to the Alberta Labour Relations Board, UFCW 1118 v. Airtex Manufacturing Partnership, [1991] Alta. L.R.B.R. 783. The names of the complainants and the respondents have not been changed, but some facts and descriptions have been modified.

Reading the Alberta Board’s award is unlikely to help you complete this assignment. Legislation in Alberta has changed and you may well be covered by different legislation. And labour relations boards can also be wrong!

The Case in Brief

The employer (Airtex) has commenced a lawful lockout of its employees before the bargaining agent (the union) was able to commence a lawful strike. Airtex has announced that it will lift the lockout after one day and employees are expected to return to work under interim working conditions. It has threatened dismissal for employees who do not return to work under the interim conditions.

The interim conditions have been set out in a detailed booklet resembling a collective agreement. The interim conditions, however, omit all references to the union embodied in the employer’s proposal: the recognition clause, union security clause, grievance procedure, non-discrimination clause, and provisions for union communication with employees. The union has complained that among other things, Airtex has violated its duty to bargain in good faith, has interfered with the union’s representation of employees, and has refused to employ employees because they are exercising their rights under the Labour Relations Code.

The Issue

Under provincial labour relations legislation, what are the respective rights and duties of employees, the union, and the employer as they work through the lockout and agreement?

The Case in Detail

For purposes of this case, assume that the date is December 12, 1993.

Airtex Manufacturing Partnership makes air conditioning equipment under the name Engineered Air. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1118 (the union) represents Engineer Air’s plant employees. The union has taken over as bargaining agent from an employee association recently, following a contentious certification. The union and Engineered Air are now negotiating toward a new collective agreement.

On December 2, the company gave the union the following notice of lockout:

Relevant Facts

The parties agree on some basic facts, and the documentary evidence discloses others:

·         The parties were bound by a collective agreement originally entered into between Engineered Air and The Engineered Air Employees’ Association. This agreement included a nominal expiry date of November 30, 1993.

·         Prior to serving lockout notice, the company engaged in serious collective bargaining with the union and it has stated its intention to continue to do so after the lockout.

·         The employer proposed terms for a new five-year collective agreement on November 8. The union proposed terms for a two-year collective agreement on November 27.

·         The company’s lockout notice, dated December 2, was not served until after all the legal prerequisites under the Labour Relations Code—for example, notice to commence collective bargaining served, mandatory mediation completed, cooling-off period expired—had been met.

·         The union elected not to pursue its right to apply for a strike vote until December 4, two days after the company served its legal lockout notice.

·         The union’s strike vote is scheduled for December 12. If members vote in favour of the strike action, the earliest the union could strike would be December 16.

·         Along with the lockout notice, Engineered Air gave each bargaining unit employee a two-page Employee Information Bulletin with questions and answers about the lockout. It also gave employees a detailed 10-page booklet entitled Engineered Air Employment Conditions.

Proposed Employment Conditions

As mentioned, the employer accompanied its lockout notice with a sophisticated set of Employment Conditions and an Employee Information Bulletin. They are important because of the things they include or omit, but even more they are important because of the impression they create for employees.

The union and employer have both tabled full proposals that the other side so far refuses to accept. The employer’s last proposal forms the basis for its Employment Conditions document, but this document is stripped of virtually all reference to the role of the union in the workplace. To some extent, this is because the document does not purport to be a collective agreement, nor can it be. However, as the following summary will show, many of the deleted employer proposals go to the heart of the union’s role as a bargaining agent, a role that continues whether a collective agreement is in place or not. In each case, the clauses referred to below are in the employer’s original proposal but have been deleted or amended significantly to remove any references to the union in the proposed Employment Conditions. All the clauses had been agreed to in bargaining, so none are in dispute.

In addition to the deletion of these clauses and provisions, the Employment Conditions also propose the following changes and modifications:

Finally, the Employment Conditions add an article dealing with a social club/employee association that has existed for some time but has not previously been mentioned in the collective agreement or any proposals. It reads:

Article 14 – Hot Air Social Club

The company offers and encourages membership in the Hot Air Social Club. The club promotes favourable employee relations through social functions planned by employees. Funding of these functions is through a $1 monthly contribution by each employee, which is matched by the company on an equal basis. Membership will be offered upon commencement of employment.

The Issues for You to Decide

In the light of the course material and your own provincial labour relations legislation, answer the following questions:

1.    Does a strike or lockout end a collective agreement?

2.    If so, does an employer have the ability to unilaterally impose terms and conditions of employment once strike or lockout action ends the collective agreement?

3.    If an employer unilaterally implements such terms, are employees required to work under those terms, without their individual, or the union’s collective, approval?

4.    Can the employer exclude from the terms it unilaterally imposes all terms that are related to the union?

5.    Do the employer’s actions in this case constitute bargaining in bad faith?

Combine your answers to these questions in an essay that does not exceed 1,500 words.