March 14, 2019

ABI Workers Reject Alcoa's Dictated Contract
and Back-to-Work Protocol

90 Per Cent Turnout, 82 Per Cent Rejection of Company Contract at
Membership Meeting


Workers Want a Negotiated Contract Not One-Sided Company Dictate
The Workers' Demand for an Alternative to Dictate - Pierre Chénier 

Letter to the Editor
A Lockout Is Not a "Force Majeure" - Montérégie Metallurgical Worker

BC Rail Tragedy and Other Train Derailments
Canadian Pacific's Reckless Move  
Rail Workers Defend Their Rights and Safety - Peggy Askin
Arbitrator Issues Cease and Desist Order to CP Rail - Teamsters Canada
Rail Conference

Growing Number of Rail Accidents

New Brunswick Criminalizes Workers' Just Claims
Provincial Government and Court of Queen's Bench Declare Nursing Home Workers' Strike Illegal - Interview, Simon Ouellette, Communications Representative, CUPE Maritimes

ABI Workers Reject Alcoa's Dictated Contract and Back-to-Work Protocol

90 Per Cent Turnout, 82 Per Cent Rejection of Company Contract at Membership Meeting

Smelter workers at the Aluminerie de Bécancour Inc. (ABI) held a general membership meeting on March 11, to discuss and vote on the latest contract offer of the Alcoa/Rio Tinto cartel. Eight hundred and thirty-one union members participated in the meeting out of a current membership of 926. After serious discussion and presentations, the 831 members in attendance voted 82 per cent to reject the company's proposed collective agreement. The workers, who have been locked out by the company for 14 long months, also rejected a company back-to-work protocol that had not been negotiated with the local union.

The President of USW Local 9700, Clément Masse, gave his impressions of the meeting to Workers' Forum:

"The workers said that this is not a negotiated agreement and accepting such an agreement is like saying you do not have a union anymore, that the employer can do whatever it wants. The offer that the employer presented shows a lack of respect for us and it is the same as regards the back-to-work protocol. We have built our union and we have built our contracts over the years, and we do not agree that we should lose everything because the employer wants to smash the union. That is what came out of the interventions at the mic; that we are still able to stand up and will not accept just anything even after 14 months. It is not true that the employer can impose its way of doing things on us. They will have to sit down and negotiate and show respect for the workers. The workers have also targeted the energy deal with Alcoa that is hurting us and doing nothing but prolonging the conflict."

The union president also made the following comment in a statement issued by the Quebec Steelworkers on the evening of March 11:

"The offer represented a series of take-backs by the company. ABI has refused to negotiate, it has refused to accept third-party arbitration. It just wanted to impose its will, counting on fatigue from its 14-month lockout. The answer from our members is clear: it didn't work. The members don't want to go back on their knees. Alcoa disrespects our Labour Code by negotiating in bad faith, it disrespects Quebeckers by making them pay for its lockout, it disrespects workers by closing the door on negotiation as well as arbitration. The government of Quebec must intervene. The imbalance of power is unacceptable and the behaviour of this multinational is unacceptable."

Haut de page

Workers Want a Negotiated Contract Not
One-Sided Company Dictate

ABI smelter workers, March 1, 2019, outside Premier Legault's office.

USW Local 9700 called a vote on the latest company contract to ensure every member had a say and vote on the matter after 14 months of lockout. Steelworkers pointed out that the offer and accompanying back-to-work protocol are worse than what had been negotiated before the January 2018 lockout was imposed, when only two points were in dispute.

Workers highlighted that the current offer, or rather dictate, is vastly inferior to what had previously been negotiated regarding work organization, scheduling, the pension fund, respect for seniority, the use of subcontracting and the abolition of unionized positions. The so-called back-to-work protocol had never even been discussed with the union and could only be considered disrespectful to workers and their rights. It demanded the return to work be spread over a period of 10 months, which could be extended according to various pretexts. During this time, managers and subcontractors could occupy the positions of unionized employees.

"Such a prolonged return-to-work period is unprecedented," Local 9700 President Clément Masse said. "The principle of a return-to-work protocol is to negotiate the armistice to the conflict. This protocol does the opposite, it sets fires. By way of comparison, following a labour dispute in 2004, everyone was back in the plant within six weeks."

The union members made it clear during the meeting and with their vote that they do not want to go back to work under these conditions, even after a difficult 14 months of lockout and a coming period full of uncertainty.

Workers' Forum greatly respects the decision of the ABI workers to reject the company dictate. The courage and determination of the ABI workers to defend their rights in the face of a powerful international force and a spineless government that refuses to do its duty and protect its own people, gives heart to millions of workers across Quebec and Canada who are fed up with the current one-sided state of affairs between employees and employers.

Workers' Forum congratulates all those across the country who have come forward to support the locked-out ABI workers in many ways. The Alcoa/Rio Tinto cartel is not invincible but the struggle demands the active stepped-up support of all workers and allies throughout the country. The determination of the organized working class can win this battle for its rights, respect and terms of employment agreeable to those who do the work and produce the social wealth.

Haut de page

The Workers' Demand for an Alternative to Dictate

An alternative to the current direction of dictate over workers and society by the global cartels must be found. The broad denial of rights within this dictatorship of powerful supranational cartels is unacceptable in a modern society. People have rights by virtue of being human. Companies, no matter how dominant they have become in their sector, cannot be allowed to violate the rights of employees or others in society. Governments have a duty and social responsibility to stand up and defend their citizens.

The Alcoa/Rio Tinto lockout and dictate of terms of employment are not only an attack on ABI workers but on all members of a civilized society. Employees must be accorded the respect they deserve as producers of the social wealth that companies crave and which the people, economy and society require for their existence. Respect and rights mean that workers must have an organized say and control over their terms of employment including the wages and benefits they are paid for their capacity to work and the working conditions at work. The terms of employment cannot be the pragmatic product of what the company says it wants and needs to compete in the global market. A collective agreement worthy of the name must be negotiated in an organized and respectful manner with the representatives of the workers, and must gain the consent of employees and be beneficial for the workers, not just provide the company what it says it wants and needs.

Modern workers refuse to be humiliated and have their rights violated. The Alcoa/Rio Tinto cartel is apparently drunk on the global strength of its operations and thinks that it can do whatever it wants without being held to account. This can be seen in its rejection of negotiations and imposition of a lockout even though the differences in the proposed contract of 2018 were minor. The cartel has something else in mind such as the complete destruction of the local union and any benefits, security and stability workers and their community have gained through previous contracts.

The arrogance of the cartel can also be seen in the way it declared the lockout it had engineered as a "force majeure" beyond its control. In this way it refuses to pay for the block of energy Hydro-Québec produces and has set aside for the cartel at preferential rates. It can be seen in the apparent ease in which it has gained the compliance of the Quebec government for the lockout and the fraud of a "force majeure."

The Quebec government for its part refuses to uphold its duty to its citizens and hold the cartel to account even though Quebec workers and Quebec hydroelectric power are the human and natural resource that the cartel needs for its aluminum operations not just at Bécancour but elsewhere in Quebec and likewise in western Canada.

An alternative to the dictate of the global financial oligarchy is not difficult to imagine but difficult to bring into being precisely because of the power, social wealth and political allies the cartels have amassed. The alternative has to come from the organized strength and determination of the working class, which ABI workers are exhibiting in spades. This particular struggle can be won but everyone must become involved and raise their voices and intensify their active and conscious participation in the ABI workers' resistance to the denial of their rights. The Quebec government must be denounced and isolated as a vile sellout of the Quebec people and nation. What kind of government is this that refuses to hold a global cartel to account and allows it to abuse not only its employees but the Quebec people and their hydroelectric infrastructure?

Let us all redouble our support and active participation in the struggle of the ABI workers for their rights and against the dictate of the global oligarchs. An alternative to dictate must be found! This struggle can be won!

Haut de page

Letter to the Editor

A Lockout Is Not a "Force Majeure"

I read with interest the article in the March 7 issue of Workers' Forum "Workers Demand Legault Government Make Alcoa/Rio Tinto Meet Its Commitments on Energy Contract." I am closely following the lockout at ABI and I also think that it is fraudulent to consider this lockout as a "force majeure," "an unforeseeable, irresistible event beyond the control of a Party," which in this case is Alcoa. As the article says, the lockout is a planned operation to attack the working conditions and the union.

I think one of the crucial moments that showed that the lockout is planned was what happened on March 8, 2018. After having liquidated in a few minutes what was meant to be a negotiation session between the two parties in the presence of the mediator, ABI's management issued a statement saying:

"Representatives of the Bécancour Smelter (ABI) management met with USW Local 9700 today, informing them that the plant needs fundamental changes to achieve long-term success. The meeting took place in the presence of Mr. Jean Nolin, the conciliator appointed by the Ministry of Labour.

"The constant objectives of ABI management during last year's long negotiations were to ensure the sustainability of the plant and to reach a negotiated agreement. However, the union's pressure tactics during these negotiations have caused a significant deterioration of the operating conditions in the plant, creating hazards for employees, putting the products at risk, threatening the supply of customers and negatively affecting the financial performance.

"The union's rejection of a fair and competitive offer left ABI management with no choice but to take steps to protect its employees and the assets of the plant. Consequently, the rejected offer can no longer serve as a basis for a future settlement.

"ABI is not as competitive as it should be and this situation needs to be improved to succeed in the long term.

"As a result, ABI's operational structure needs to be re-evaluated with the goal of significantly improving productivity and workforce organization to ensure consistency for its customers."

If this is not a planned operation to attack the working conditions and the union, then what is it?

In this press release, ABI management is trying to kill two birds with one stone.

It declares the end of its previous offer, which could have led to a settlement through negotiations, and signals that in fact its aim is a complete restructuring of the ABI operation. At the same time it claims, after the fact, that its lockout was justified because the workers had sabotaged production and machinery and endangered the plant and the lives of the employees when they were at work months before the lockout! And, it should be noted, this "sabotage" was never raised at the time, when the workers were at work.

In this press release, Alcoa is therefore trying to present the lockout as a defensive measure on its part against a concocted "force majeure," the so-called sabotage by the workers to justify its decision that its offer is no longer valid and that it must carry out a complete restructuring of the place at the expense of working conditions and the union! This is illogical. It can certainly be said that rationality is not the strong point of ABI management, but it cannot be said that the lockout was not planned. From the beginning, Alcoa has had a hidden agenda that has been revealed more and more clearly ever since.

The Quebec government should not try to compete with ABI management over which has the more fraudulent arguments of the two. The Alcoa/Rio Tinto cartel has to pay for the block of energy that is set aside for it. This lockout is not a "force majeure." If the government takes the side of the Quebeckers who it claims to represent, that will put pressure on the Alcoa/Rio Tinto cartel to finally negotiate so that the lockout can end in a manner acceptable to the workers.

Haut de page

BC Rail Tragedy and Other Train Derailments

Canadian Pacific's Reckless Move

Train derailment in Calgary, March 9, 2019.

Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) announced on March 8 an appeal of Transport Canada's Ministerial Order requiring the application of handbrakes to secure a train when stopped on a mountain grade. According to CP, the Railway Association of Canada and Canadian National (CN) are also appealing the Ministerial Order issued on February 8, in the wake of the tragedy that occurred 4 days earlier.

The disaster in question took the lives of conductor Dylan Paradis, engineer Andrew Dockrell and trainee Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer. Their 112-car CP grain train sped out of control down a track in the Rocky Mountains and derailed. The train had been stopped on a mountain grade for two hours to address mechanical issues including problems controlling the speed of the train. During the stop, emergency brakes were applied. The train began to move and accelerated to a speed in excess of the maximum track speed and derailed.

The Transportation Safety Board investigation found that no handbrakes had been applied. Transport Canada's February 8 Ministerial Order requires operators of trains halted in an emergency stop on a mountain grade to apply a sufficient number of handbrakes to prevent the train from moving.

Railway workers have long demanded more be done to secure trains and protect their lives and those of the public. They support the Ministerial Order regarding the application of handbrakes. They see this move as part of their fight to get to the heart of the problem of recurring accidents. This includes a public investigation of the phenomenon of trains speeding out of control. They call for the establishment of a public authority that enforces rail safety in which workers who have direct knowledge and experience of the industry have a say and control.

CP, in an uncouth and arrogant manner, announced an appeal of the Ministerial Order under the guise that the application of handbrakes will introduce "additional risks" and "unintended consequences." CP advocates "safer options" yet remains silent on those options or what the additional risks and unintended consequences might be when handbrakes are used.

Railway workers surmise that CP may be referring to the potential risks for conductors in moving along the train in an unfavorable environment in order to apply handbrakes. They say such dangers, although real, cannot be compared with those of a train speeding out of control after starting to roll on its own.

In an article dated March 1, the Globe and Mail reports Transport Canada held a briefing with the industry and unions at the end of February during which CP spoke on the need for safety measures that do not hamper operations by delaying traffic. According to the Globe article, CP allegedly does not want time consuming measures such as applying hand brakes. It wants to keep the trains moving with minimum delays.

This has always been the pragmatic bottom line and aim of the rail companies to secure increased private profit regardless of the consequences for workers and communities along rail lines. With private profit as the aim and driving force of the industry, the railway companies have long pushed self-regulation in concert with compliant governments. This pragmatism for private profit has been shown in practice to be a disaster for the safety of workers and the public. Train derailments keep happening and are actually on the rise across Canada. Railway workers and their allies across Canada are firmly opposed to the unacceptable anti-social direction of self-regulation of the industry and demand an alternative that favours the people. The application of handbrakes on slopes is one measure in this regard.

Train derailment, Carlos, Minnesota, March 1, 2019.

Haut de page

Rail Workers Defend Their Rights and Safety

Railway workers continue to speak out to defend their rights and safety and demand solutions to deal with the extreme hazards they face on a daily basis. Four significant derailments of CP trains occurred recently. These derailments took place only one month after the death of three rail workers when a train derailed close to the Spiral Tunnels near Field, BC and plunged into the Kicking Horse River.

The most recent string of four derailments began on February 28, when a freight train hauling grain and empty automobile carriers left the tracks just west of the Banff Alberta town site. The next day, more than two dozen cars of a CP train carrying grain and potash derailed just south of Carlos, Minnesota, and on March 2, a number of cars carrying diesel and grain left the rails as they crossed a bridge over the Kicking Horse River, in virtually the same spot where the three workers were killed in January. On March 9, another train derailed near the Ogden Yards in Calgary with multiple train cars leaving the tracks.

Christopher Monette, spokesperson for the Teamsters Canada Railway Conference (TCRC) told the Calgary Herald that workers are raising concerns about the potentially dangerous effect on the trains of a recent stretch of bitterly cold weather. "Workers are telling us the trains are becoming harder to control in cold weather," Monette said, particularly for locomotives operating in especially frigid conditions and difficult terrain through the mountain passes.

Monette also said another potential catastrophe was narrowly avoided on the same stretch of track through the Spiral Tunnels where the accident occurred that killed the three workers last month. The engineer of a 109-car grain train had to apply the emergency brakes to stop an out-of-control westbound locomotive.

Rail safety is a matter of life and death the union points out but CP has failed to make any changes in policy since the Field derailment. CP is even fighting against taking precautions while the investigation of the causes of the fatal crash is ongoing.

Shortly after the fatal Field disaster, Transport Canada Minister Marc Garneau issued a ministerial order. The order states:

"When a train is stopped by an emergency brake application on a grade of 1.8 per cent or greater (i.e. mountain grade), immediately apply a sufficient number of handbrakes, in accordance with the attached Appendix A, before recharging the air brake system to prevent involuntary movement of the equipment."

The Transportation Safety Board senior investigator James Carmichael confirmed that the fatal crash was not due to anything the crew did, and that the train started to move on its own. "We're going to try to determine why the brakes didn't stay in place," he said.

The TCRC fully supported the order. "We can't be taking any chances until the exact causes of this tragic derailment are determined. You can't put a price tag on rail safety -- it's a matter of life and death," said Don Ashley, National Legislative Director of the TCRC.

But putting a price tag on the lives of workers and public safety is exactly what CP is doing. CP Rail has appealed the order, claiming the application of handbrakes, "introduces additional risks and will have unintended consequences" without clarifying what those consequences may be or what should be done in the meantime. The Railway Association of Canada representing companies involved in the sector and CN itself are also appealing the Ministerial Order.

Rail workers have direct experience with operating conditions in addition to having access to scientific opinion through their union. They are in the best position to assess whether a measure will enhance safety or not. CP has dismissed the informed conclusions of the workers about this particular precaution of applying handbrakes without presenting a shred of evidence as to why the measure should not be taken. Canadians should raise their voices in solidarity with rail workers who continue to defend their safety and that of the public within the rail industry.

Haut de page

Arbitrator Issues Cease and Desist Order to CP Rail

The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) posted the following on its website on March 9, 2019.


Sisters & Brothers,

In March of 2018 Arbitrator Clarke ruled in regards to the systemic Over Hours violations that go to the core of rail employees' rest and work-life balance.

The arbitrator accordingly declares that CP has violated the collective agreement.

The TCRC has further convinced the arbitrator to issue a cease and desist order given the high number of examples, even using CP's own numbers and explanations, when employees' right to be off duty within 10 hours has not been respected. This cease and desist order applies as well to those employees who are entitled to be in and off duty within 12 hours.

We Need Your Help!

Sadly, but not surprisingly the company has begun to disrespect your right to be off duty within 10 or 12 hours. The TCRC has no intention of allowing this to go unchallenged. With that in mind we need your help to document the violations. Please fill out this form each time you are forced over your hours."

Note: Work-rest rules for rail workers require that operating employees who go off-duty after being on-duty in excess of 10 hours will be off duty for:

a) at the home terminal -- be subject to at least 8 continuous hours off-duty, 'exclusive' of call time if applicable, except for yard service employees returning to their regular shift, who will be subject to at least 8 continuous hours off-duty, 'inclusive' of call time if applicable; and

b) at other than the home terminal -- be subject to at least 6 continuous hours off-duty, 'exclusive' of call time if applicable.

5.2.2 At the home terminal, mandatory off-duty time shall commence at the point where the operating employee goes off-duty, and at other than the home terminal, mandatory off-duty time shall commence upon arrival at the accommodations provided by the railway company.

5.2.3 When the off-duty time between any shifts or tours of duty is less than three hours and the combined on-duty time of such shifts or tours of duty is in excess of 10 hours, then the provisions of subsection 5.2.1 apply at the time the operating employees last go off-duty. The off-duty time between such shifts or tours of duty are not to be included in the calculation of on-duty time.

Haut de page

Growing Number of Rail Accidents

The number of rail accidents in Canada increased from 1,091 to 1,170 in 2017, higher than the five-year average of 1035, according to the Transportation Safety Board. Accidents involving dangerous goods increased nine per cent to 125 from 115, with six resulting in the release of dangerous materials.[1] This is of great concern to the rail workers and to public safety. But to the financial oligarchy it is another story. Responding to a preliminary report from the Transportation Safety Board, RBC Capital Markets analyst wrote in a research report, "All said, we believe that the statistics are encouraging in many important areas, thereby suggesting that the railroads are operating at a high level of safety."

CP claims that it takes appropriate measures to ensure safety during extreme cold, but its own statistics reveal that this is a fraudulent claim.

CP's White Paper, Railroading in the Canadian Winter states that cold weather speeds up the rate of air leakage from the air brake system, and that speed should be reduced in frigid temperatures -- by at least 16 km/h below -25 C and by at least 32 km/h at -35 C. The report reveals that both train length and speed rose significantly in just four years from 2013-2017.[2] Train lengths were higher in January and February 2017 than the annual average for the years 2013-2016. Average speeds in January and February 2016 and 2017 were higher than the rest of the year averages for 2013- 2015. CP claims that the significant increase in the length and speed of trains over the years 2013-2017 is the result of "significant capital investments, better winter planning, and other operational changes." The growing number of accidents, and the alarming number of derailments in a very short time tell a very different story.


1. White Paper: Railroading in the Canadian Winter.


Haut de page

New Brunswick Criminalizes Workers' Just Claims

Provincial Government and Court of Queen's Bench Declare Nursing Home Workers' Strike Illegal

CUPE meeting March 9, 2019 to plan next moves after they were deprived of right to strike.

Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) nursing home workers in New Brunswick have voted 94 per cent to go on strike to defend their demands for wages and working conditions acceptable to themselves. The provincial government instead of responding in a positive and respectful manner applied for and was granted an order from the Court of Queen's Bench to interfere with the workers' right to strike in defence of their demands. The day before the 4,100 workers would have walked off the job on March 10, the court granted an order depriving the workers of their right to strike for 10 days.

Regardless of which cartel party has been in power, the New Brunswick government has steadily refused to invest in nursing homes as a necessary social program to meet the needs and well-being of those requiring care and the workers who provide the care. Instead, governments have continually said that workers and the Association of Nursing Homes must negotiate within the investment parameters of the government of the day pretending that those who hold the purse strings and decide how the value of nursing homes is realized are detached from the issue other than to interfere with workers' rights.

On March 11, nursing homes workers and allies held demonstrations in Saint John, Shippagan, Edmundston, and other cities to protest the court order and interference in their right to strike in defence of their claim on the value they produce for society and a say on their working conditions.

Workers' Forum interviewed Simon Ouellette, the Communications Representative for the Maritimes Office of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.


Picket March 11, 2019 outside Deputy Premier Robert Gavin's office in Shippagan.

Workers' Forum: How many workers are engaged in the current struggle?

Simon Ouellette: Approximately 4,100 employees, mostly women, work in 46 New Brunswick nursing homes across the province. It can be said that they are the support staff in the nursing home system: licensed practical nurses, cooks, maintenance workers, attendants etc. These nursing homes are operated privately but are funded by the government.

WF: What are the main demands of the workers?

SO: We can characterize the demands as follows: decent wages so as to solve the crisis of recruitment and retention of staff. These questions are interrelated. New Brunswick has a population that is rapidly aging. The people who live in nursing homes can no longer drive and have reduced mobility. Their need for services is increasing, but the level of staff has not increased and the wages have not increased either. Wages have stagnated for more than a decade. This is a phenomenon that is happening across New Brunswick, despite the economic recovery. What we have is a recovery without wage increases. In fact, New Brunswick workers have seen their purchasing power decline. Nursing home workers are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many workers from different sectors whose wages have stagnated and whose purchasing power has decreased.

At the heart of the problem is recruitment and retention of staff. Without decent wages, the most experienced people leave the profession. New recruits work a few months and realize that the conditions make no sense and leave the sector. There is little incentive to stay because people can find a job elsewhere. And even that is not always the case because in rural areas nursing homes are often one of the largest employers. There are over 350 staff vacancies at the moment in nursing homes across the province.

WF: There has been a lot of talk about essential services in this fight. Can you tell us more about that?

SO: There is a law that was passed in 2009 on essential services in nursing homes in New Brunswick. The law designates almost all employees in nursing homes as essential. Basically, they lost their right to strike. Then, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in 2015, in relation to a Saskatchewan law, that the right to free collective bargaining includes the right to strike under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2018, the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board invalidated much of the Essential Services in Nursing Homes Act as being in contravention of the charter.

The employer ended up in a situation where there is no essential services designation. It requested that the government intervene to review the designation of essential services. This is happening while we are in the midst of negotiations, and the employers are in a situation where the workers have regained their right to strike that had been denied. It has been almost ten years since the retention crisis escalated and there was not a single government that wanted to tackle the problem. Employers are asking for a review of the Board's decision, which could take years. Rather than be in the courts for years, we have people who need to improve their wages and conditions and have other things in mind besides going to court. The employer hopes to deal with the legal system instead of coming to an acceptable agreement with the workers.

WF: Can you tell us more about the court order that was issued Saturday, March 9?

SO: The Government of New Brunswick obtained a court order from the Court of Queen's Bench Saturday. We learned about it in the media. They went for an ex parte order, which means an order that is made in our absence. We did not even have the opportunity to present our arguments. The order says it is illegal to go on strike and hold any kind of job action for the next 10 days. The penalties are very severe for anyone who violates the court order.

We find it very irresponsible for the government to be involved in the negotiation process using the big stick of the law in favour of the employer instead of bringing resources to the table to improve the situation. It has been 28 months that we have been trying to negotiate an acceptable contract.

The employer has dragged things out and it suits them very well that the government is engaging in these legal actions because it allows the process to drag out so the employers do not have to provide better wages and conditions for the workers.

The government may seek an extension of the court order to review the issue of the designation of essential services in nursing homes. After that, the union will probably appeal if it is not satisfied and that will never end. This could last for years and in practice deny employees a basic right.

We are asking that the government fix the situation and ensure that there is fair and equitable bargaining for a collective agreement that is acceptable to the workers. We do not want the important issue of wages and the recruitment and retention of staff to be drowned in the legal system.

Nursing home workers picket outside MLA's office, March 11, 2019.

Haut de page

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)


Website:   Email: