I don’t really agree with the degree of doom predicted by the article.
The crux of the matter seems to be that once the workers went back to work they needed to give 72 hours notice to walk off again. That maybe a mistake by the Board, but hardly a calamity. They put in notice and walk off again. At worse, it stretches the length of the negotiations by 72 hours. In this case, it did not.
If this is how the labour boards are going to interpret the laws, then the most likely outcome is that unions are going to stay off work until a tentative deal is accepted and ratified by the members. Why risk having to put in another 72 hours of notice?
Is this good for the workers? No.
Is this good for the employer? No.
So maybe they have an agreement that no notice is necessary to go back to the picket lines if they return to work before ratification.
I don’t see any greater threat to worker rights here.
I don’t really agree with the degree of doom predicted by the article.
The crux of the matter seems to be that once the workers went back to work they needed to give 72 hours notice to walk off again. That maybe a mistake by the Board, but hardly a calamity. They put in notice and walk off again. At worse, it stretches the length of the negotiations by 72 hours. In this case, it did not.
If this is how the labour boards are going to interpret the laws, then the most likely outcome is that unions are going to stay off work until a tentative deal is accepted and ratified by the members. Why risk having to put in another 72 hours of notice?
Is this good for the workers? No.
Is this good for the employer? No.
So maybe they have an agreement that no notice is necessary to go back to the picket lines if they return to work before ratification.
I don’t see any greater threat to worker rights here.