Contracting Out Language Collective Agreements

A number of recent decisions involving a contractor working with different clients and trade unions provide valuable information on the application of contractual clauses in trade union agreements. These cases show how the same requirements for maintaining collective agreements can be treated very differently, with considerably different results. They also show that the allocation of collective bargaining must be carried out carefully, taking into account trade union constraints. This is an area in which good working relationships can make a big difference in the outcome. These cases show that good planning and cooperation between all parties can avoid impractical results, even in the most restrictive contractual language. However, in Credit Valley, CUPE followed a completely different path. She fought the contraction. He claimed that the hospital was not following the exit requirements of the collective agreement, including shock and severance pay. In both collective agreements, the SEIU had enforceable language that regulated any Humber decision to assign work to the bargaining unit. This language provided displaced members of the bargaining unit with a considerable level of job security. At Humber, some of the distributed sterilization technicians decided to leave voluntarily or retire and accepted financial incentives.

Others were able to apply for vacancies at Humber. The rest got the same jobs, with SteriPro. His service, seniority and accomplishments have remained intact. SEIU and SteriPro then began negotiating a collective agreement. Next, SteriPro challenged the Shime decision in court on the grounds that it was not properly modest on this matter and was not in a position to participate in that case. Credit Valley and Trillium brought other challenges against Mr. Shime and Mr. Kaplan`s interpretations of the collective agreement. SteriPro`s legal challenge was dismissed in October 2012. The hospitals` legal challenges were dismissed in December 2012. Referee Shime contradicted the hospital. He considered that the clause in the contract did not mean « that employees who normally perform the work are transferred automatically or smoothly to the contractor ».

That is why Mr. Shime decided that, at least from a legal point of view, but for the unsuccessful collateral attack by the OWU, the conclusion of the contract with Humber went smoothly. SteriPro, Humber and SEIU were able to work together for a smooth transition. In these cases, Credit Valley Hospital and Humber River Regional Hospital had both collective agreements covering their sterilization technicians. Credit Valley was with CUPE. Humber was at SEIU. The hospital agreements of these unions have many similar conditions. Their standard hospital agreements allow the work of union members to be organised only if the contractor has given its consent: (1) to employ the dismissed staff; and (2) follow in the footsteps of the hospital for the purposes of the collective agreement and agree to enter into a similar collective agreement. Hospital/trade union agreements also contain important dismissal provisions. These include dismissal obligations, eviction or bumping rights for the employees concerned, as well as generous severance/old-age allowances.

In both cases, SteriPro undertook to fully fulfil the contractor`s obligations under these trade union agreements. . . .