Sisters & Brothers;
As we speak, there is a representational election
taking place on the Canadian Pacific Railway
between the UTU and the Teamsters Canada Rail
Conference.
This is a Federally mandated election, being carried
out by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board,
(the equivalent of the NLRB in the US)
What has some of us perplexed is why the CLRB
would contemplate this so soon after the UTU
Canada made an unsuccessfull raid on the BLE
on the CPR in Canada.
I visited the CIRB webpage www.cirb-ccri.gc.ca
and downloaded pending decision 225.
One of the reasons the CIRB decided to allow the
representational election were the ballots from
the recent raid and proof of payment of $5
dues.
The UTU never went before the CIRB with
these ballots before , due to the fact that they
had insuffiient ballots (A cards) to win a board
representational certificate. How many ballots
were there. Hundreds, dozens, who knows?
Why didn't the hearing officer say, "unless you
have a majority of A cards for the class of
employee you wish to represent, don't waste
our time saying the UTU has overwhelming
support from locomotive engineers"
To me, it appears that there was a "nudge-nudge,
wink-wink" took place here . "Nudge-Nudge" is
British slang for an alleged collusion between
lawyers and judges because they share the
same "old boys club". "Oh, I know dear old
--------, we were at Upper Canada College
couldn't possibly mislead the Court here,
he's a golfing buddy".
The hearing officer allowed unsubstantial
evidence to be factored into his decision
to allow an election to be held
Then the UTU lawyers raised the spectre of
the single craft issue, when they cited the
terms of the 1971 CLRB bargaining certificate
issued when the UTU was created. Included
in the description of those represented are
locomotive engineers and locomotive firemen
(helpers) .
They claim the
"commonality" between all the trades the
UTU represents means that in fact they
represent 70% of all running trades positions
on CP and so should be granted the
representational election in order to garner
the remaining 30%
However, the UTU went out of its way
to disenfranchise locomotive engineers
and firemen .
Very shortly after the UTU was created,
because locomotive firemen were eliminated by
the "Kellock" decision of 1955 in Canada,
the UTU at an International
convention decided to abolish the
BLF&E in Canada.
Didn't they chose not to
represent locomotive engineers and firemen
on the CPR (and CNR) when they voted in
the majority to do that ?
The Federal Government "Kellock" decision
eliminated firemen in freight only, and by
attrittion.
Sometime in the late 1970's, CN
abolished firemen in passenger service
replacing them with "second engineers" .
Because the fireman position had been declared
redundant, the wages for same were very low,
and qualified engineers avoided the work, CN
created a new position which combined
engineers milage pay with firemens arbitraries.
The CPR was unwilling to do the same, as
second engineers were paid more than locomotive
firemen. The BLE went before the CLRB
(predecessor to the CIRB) and was granted
a representational election among those
employees working as locomotive firemen at
the time (about 150 employees on CP).
The BLE was successfull in gaining representation
for locomotive firemen on CPR lines.
The firemans position in passenger service was
abolished in favour of second engineers.
So in two ways, the UTU is being untrue
in their presentation before the CIRB.
They went out of their way not to represent
engineers and firemen in Canada when they
abolished the BLF&E in Canada in 197?,
and they lost the right to represent firemen
in passenger servicve on CP through a
representational election mandate by the
CIRB.
More "nudge-nudge" here, did the CIRB
forget its own decision ?
I've always been told that the UTU International
disliked the political persuasions of certain
high ranking BLF&E officers in Canada, and
that the abolishment of the BLF&E was a
"kick the foreign commies out" initiated by
UTU President Chesser. Now they want us
back ?
We know the CIRB is fallible because of the
decision it made to eliminate conductors on
Via Rail. Brother George Cairns and others
proved the fallibility of the regulator in a series
of appeals and Court cases which partially
overturned that decision.
I beleive there are good grounds to question the
CIRB's impartiality in Case 255 also.
Phil Mason
TCRC 657
Revelstoke BC