BURSTIn a unanimous decision dated Oct. 20, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) dismissed Trigon Pacific Terminals’ complaint that ILWU Local 523 failed to bargain in good faith, ruling the ongoing strike lawful.
The board found “there is no basis to find that its strike notice is invalid.”
After hearing the evidence, the board concluded that Local 523 had not breached its legal duty to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to reach a collective agreement, and found union president Axel Skalsvik a credible witness.
The bargaining dispute is one of six ongoing proceedings before the CIRB involving Trigon Pacific Terminals and ILWU Local 523. ILWU Local 523 initiated five, including complaints involving union shop steward Jonathan Lundman, Skalsvik, bargaining committee member Archie Misko, and lead hands Jim Burns and Jerad Andreesen. The complaints allege violations related to Lundman’s treatment and termination, as well as investigations and disciplinary action involving union representatives following an earlier strike.
Trigon has also sought review of an earlier board decision that included the interim reinstatement of two union representatives. These matters are separate from the complaint over bargaining.
Two related union applications concern Trigon’s alleged use of replacement workers and a request for interim relief while the board considers that complaint. The replacement-worker case was set to be heard on Oct. 20, but no decision has been rendered.
Trigon operates a bulk export terminal on Ridley Island that handles coal and petroleum coke for international markets. The terminal employs approximately 150 people, most represented by ILWU Local 523A.
Trigon filed the applications on Oct. 2, the day the strike began, alleging Local 523A, International Longshore and Warehouse Union (C.L.C.), failed to bargain in good faith and make reasonable efforts to reach a collective agreement, contrary to section 50(a) of the Canada Labour Code.
Trigon challenged several proposals, including wage and premium increases, changes to scheduling and management rights, and provisions affecting bargaining-unit work. Trigon also sought an order requiring members to return to work and directing the union to withdraw and rewrite its bargaining proposals.
ILWU Local 523 disputed Trigon’s account of negotiations, alleging the company served 18 estoppel notices affecting 20 articles of the collective agreement, sought to cancel the first bargaining session, threatened discipline against bargaining committee members and refused to meet with the union between July 16 and Sept. 28.
“We did not enter this dispute lightly,” the ILWU 523A bargaining committee said. “We participated in bargaining and mediation, revised our proposals, and withdrew 40 proposals in an effort to move negotiations forward.”
The strike began Oct. 2 after negotiations failed to produce an agreement. The union issued 72 hours’ notice that workers would walk off the job unless they reached a revised agreement.
The union acknowledged the wider effects of the work stoppage, saying it recognizes “that a strike affects workers, families, businesses and the wider community.”
“Workers also deserve fair wages, benefits, working conditions and a collective agreement that recognizes their contributions,” the committee said.
The ruling does not resolve the contract dispute, and the union said it remains committed to reaching an agreement.
“Trigon is carefully reviewing today’s Canada Industrial Relations Board decision to determine our next steps. In the interim, our base level operations continue, and Trigon remains available to resume good faith collective bargaining with ILWU Local 523A,” said Craig Olley, Trigon’s president and CEO.
The decision comes as the federal government considers Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, which proposes changes to Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Under the proposed framework, the labour minister could, under specified conditions, direct the board to take steps such as ordering operations to resume or establishing a binding dispute-resolution process.
Any federal intervention would depend on the legislation in force and whether the applicable conditions were met.