ANCR (All Nations Coordinated Response) - Local 365 - Bargaining Brief

Updated: May 12, 2022
Approx. Number of Members: 170
Current Contract Expires: March 29, 2019
Elected Bargaining Committee Members: Nico Dawshka (Local President) Denise Vandal (Local Vice-President)

LATEST BARGAINING NEWS

On April 13, 2021, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the MGEU had a right to have an interest arbitration board appointed to determine the terms and conditions of the next Civil Service collective agreement.

This victory meant that MGEU Civil Service members (as well as members of those Locals, like ANCR, looking to the Master agreement to set precedent) would finally get a fair hearing before an independent arbitration board.

In the decision, the Minister’s appeal was dismissed, the court order to appoint an arbitration board was confirmed, and the Minister ordered to pay court costs to the MGEU.

Lawyers for the union and the government filed extensive written submissions and on September 21 and 22, 2021, made their oral arguments in front of the Board.

Overview of Bargaining So Far

Members of ANCR (All Nations Coordinated Response) - Local  365 had an opportunity to put forward their ideas and proposals for improving their collective agreement at a Local meeting held Thursday, March 7, 2019.

The Bargaining Committee then worked to pull together these proposals into a bargaining package to present to the employer.

The ANCR (All Nations Coordinated Response) - Local  365 Bargaining Committee exchanged bargaining proposals and began negotiations with the employer on Wednesday, May 29 and Thursday, May 30, 2019. Since then, negotiations have been impacted by issues at the Civil Service Master bargaining table and throughout the public sector.

Please see below for more detail on the issues impacting Local 365 negotiations.   

THE ISSUES

THE GOVERNMENT’S WAGE FREEZE LEGISLATION (BILL 28)

In 2017, the government announced that they would not consider giving any public service workers any general pay increase for the first two years of their new contract. So along with other Manitoba unions, the MGEU formed the Partnership to Defend Public Services to challenge the government in court they’re doing goes against Canadian laws – all workers have the right to negotiate a fair contract, including their wages. 

The trial was held over a few days in November 2019. MGEU President Michelle Gawronsky took the stand as the 4^th PDPS witness. Economists, other labour leaders, labour relations experts, as well as several MGEU staff were also called to testify.
 
All of this testimony added to the body of evidence placed before the judge, which already includes 37 affidavits and more than 100 pages of agreed upon facts.
 
In January 2020, the PDPS and the Government filed their written arguments with the court. Final arguments were heard over three days in February. .

On June 11, a Court of Queen's Bench judge ruled in favour of the unions, agreeing that Bill 28 violated members' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On August 17, 2020, the Pallister government announced it would be appealing the judge's decision.

The government had until January 2021 to submit supporting documentation for its appeal by the end of January 2021 and the Partnership to Defend Pubic Services (PDPS) (which includes the MGEU and other public-sector unions) then had 30 days to file material in response. 

On June 2, 2021, the Court heard from both sides in the Appeal hearing. The PDPS legal counsel made the case, once again, that the Public Services Sustainability Act (Bill 28) is unconstitutional, as it denies public sector workers of their Charter rights to sit down and negotiate fair wage increases with their employer.

On October 13, 2021, the Manitoba Court of Appeal announced it was overturning the Court of Queen’s Bench decision in favour of workers.

On December 13, 2021, the PDPS announced it was seeking leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal of the Government of Manitoba’s public sector wage freeze legislation. 

THE GOVERNMENT’S REFUSAL TO APPOINT A THIRD-PARTY ARBITRATION BOARD

The Civil Service Bargaining Committee exchanged proposal packages with the employer in March 2019 and negotiations began in mid-April. Almost immediately, these negotiations were frustrated by the Province’s refusal to discuss wages and benefits and their unwillingness to be up front about whether or not they intended to table the wage mandate contained in Bill 28.

As a result, the Civil Service Bargaining Committee felt compelled to file for arbitration, which allows an independent, third-party panel to hear arguments from both sides, and determine a contract settlement. The Committee strongly believes that an independent arbitration board will provide a fair outcome, setting aside the Province’s unproclaimed legislation. This judgement has been reinforced by recent arbitration settlements in Manitoba’s public sector.

After filing for arbitration, the MGEU began working with legal counsel to prepare the MGEU’s presentation on behalf of all MGEU Civil Service members.

However, in September 2019, the MGEU learned that the Minister responsible for the Civil Service refused to appoint an arbitration panel. 

This left the MGEU with no choice but to file an application asking the Court of Queen's Bench to order the government to appoint an arbitrator.

The union and the Province filed written arguments on January 30, 2020 and made their case in front of the judge on February 27, 2020.

On April 16, 2020 the Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that the MGEU was entirely justified in seeking arbitration on behalf of Civil Service members. In her ruling, Judge Keyser sided firmly with the union and directed Finance Minister Scott Fielding to appoint an arbitration panel as clearly outlined in the Civil Service Act.

On June 1, the Minister responsible for the Civil Service wrote the MGEU to say it will be take the first step in complying with the court's order to appoint an arbitration panel. However, the Minister also said the government would be appealing the judge's ruling.

Return to Bargaining Briefs List