After a few days of back-and-forth proposals, the apparent progress to end a strike by 55,000 workers at Canada Post seems to have ground to a halt.
By midday Monday, neither side would confirm whether the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had officially responded to the company’s latest offer sent on Friday through a federally appointed mediator. The strike is now in its fifth week.
Instead, the two sides traded shots through the media over the weekend, with union negotiator Jim Gallant saying CUPW was “extremely disappointed” at the latest proposal, and the company chiding the union for speaking publicly rather than through the mediator.
It could be a sign, labour relations experts say, of internal divisions at the union of how to respond to the company’s attempts to restructure how it operates.
“I think what we’re seeing now is that there are probably internal negotiations in the union to determine how to move forward,” said Stephanie Ross, a labour studies professor at McMaster University.
The series of unofficial back-and-forth proposals began last Sunday, after the union and Canada Post received a stern, closed-door talking-to from federal Labour Minister Steven MacKinnon.
Still, no formal bargaining has taken place since Nov. 28, when the mediator called off talks, saying the two sides were too far apart to reach a deal. The strike began Nov. 15.
Canada Post has previously said it has offered wage increases totalling 11.5 per cent over four years and additional paid leave, while protecting the defined benefit pension and job security provisions.
The union has called for a cumulative wage hike of 24 per cent over four years, as well as suggesting that Canada Post expand into banking.
The company is also seeking to provide weekend deliveries, and have a greater share of its staff be part-time. The union wants full-time workers to do weekend delivery, while the company wants to hire part-time staff to do the job.
That kind of dramatic restructuring makes it far harder to see a clear path to a settlement than if it were only money dividing the two sides, Ross said. “It’s hard to split the difference when you’re talking about expanding the presence of casual and part-time labour.”
Progress will be tougher to find at this point, agreed Rafael Gomez, director of the Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources at the University of Toronto.
“We’re not in a position where either party benefits from giving in. It’s a lose-lose,” said Gomez. “When you’re negotiating about how much less you lose, it’s much more fraught than splitting up the pie.”
The longer the strike goes on, the less generous Canada Post’s contract offers could become, Gomez predicted.
“They were already losing money before the strike, and now they’re losing revenue during the busiest time of the year for parcel deliveries,” said Gomez. “It wouldn’t surprise me if Canada Post said, ‘We can’t afford to give you what we could have a month ago.’ ”
The federal government has thus far said it won’t invoke Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and apply to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board for binding arbitration to end the strike, but that prospect could push both sides back to the table, said Larry Savage, a labour relations professor at Brock University.
“Unions … much prefer negotiated settlements over imposed agreements. And while some business organizations have been calling for government intervention, Canada Post has not — likely because binding arbitration would put management’s key restructuring demands at risk,” said Savage.
The two sides are already involved in one dispute at the CIRB; the union has also filed an unfair labour practice complaint against Canada Post over its decision to lay off some striking workers. The union has criticized the layoffs as an attempt at intimidation.
The layoffs may well have backfired, said Ross.
“I think the layoff move wasn’t very wise. It didn’t have the intended effect, which was to introduce fear, and put more pressure on CUPW members,” said Ross.
And the tactic of bringing other parties to court or regulatory hearings as a way to kick-start negotiations rarely works because it’s usually seen as an aggressive move not conducive to open conversation, Ross added.
