Vale Inco has posted a message to striking United Steelworkers (USW) Local 6500 members on one of its websites to answer questions “following the USW campaign of misinformation” in the lead up to a vote on a contract offer from the company last week.

“Never before have we witnessed the levels of fear-mongering and outright falsehoods displayed last week by ‘leaders’ of the USW," the statement, posted on the website, www.valeinconegotiations.com, said. "Their actions have prolonged a strike that has gone on far too long already. We are disappointed . . . but not surprised.”

“We are also moving on. The unwillingness of the USW to negotiate a deal that meets the needs of both employees and the business is evident to all. We have employees who are not on strike and want to work, we have customers who rely on us for their own livelihoods, and we have a union that has done nothing to indicate they care about the business realities we face.”

The Q&A section of Vale Inco's statement

Why was there no ‘return to work’ protocol in place?

In the lead-up to the employee vote on the company’s offer to end the strike, the union leadership went to great lengths to spread uncertainty and fear around the absence of an agreed-upon return-to-work protocol — making unsubstantiated claims of timelines stretching out six months and hinting at ulterior motives on the part of the company. What they failed to explain was that contract talks ended — at the discretion of the independent mediator — before any substantive discussions on returning to work could occur. This was not at all unusual as the two sides had yet to arrive at any form of agreement — the point at which a ‘return-to-work’ conversation would typically begin. There was never any mystery to this and the USW leadership knows it.

As we posted on the company website (www.valeinconegotiations.com), had the offer to end the strike been accepted most employees would have returned within four weeks and all employees within six weeks. Looking forward, with no end to the strike in sight, those timelines will extend as production increases and product pipelines become full. The USW leadership knows this as well.

Is the company planning layoffs when employees return to work?
No, there are no layoffs planned. The union leadership knows this. Our most recent five-year offer to end the strike contained retirement incentives for employees with more than 27 years of employment with pay (YEWPS). In addition, some 500 production and maintenance employees have retired since January 1, 2009. We have downsized considerably already and our challenge now is to realize the efficiencies we need by producing the same or more with a smaller workforce. We cannot, as the USW leadership is demanding, insert a ‘no layoffs for five years’ clause into any offer of settlement. No business can. If events of the past 24 months have taught us anything, it’s that economic circumstances can and do change dramatically with very little warning. Again, the USW leadership knows this.

Is the company prepared to bring back employees who had their employment terminated during the strike?
No. The union bargaining team is demanding that the company reinstate individuals terminated over the course of the strike as part of any settlement. Our position remains clear – this will not happen. Decisions to terminate employment are not made lightly. The facts of each case were reviewed in detail before any decisions were made. In the end, the actions of the individuals in question fail any test of acceptable behaviour – either in society or in the workplace. The USW leadership knows this.

Why was there no signing bonus in the company’s settlement offer?
In more than three months of negotiations prior to the strike, and an additional 10 days of mediated talks earlier this month, the company provided a comprehensive business overview to the USW leadership, including the challenges confronting our operations in Ontario. Successfully concluding a new collective agreement is just one part of what’s required to build a long-term future. We also need to manage costs and improve productivity in every aspect of our operation. A ‘signing bonus’ was not appropriate and has never been a consideration. The USW leadership knows this. A ‘return to production’ bonus meets the needs of all concerned — providing employees with the same or greater bonus opportunity while helping ensure the business resumes successfully for the benefit of all — employees, customers and shareholders. It is designed to be paid with normal effort, not some form of super-human effort as the USW would have you believe. We want our people and the business to succeed — the USW leadership knows this.

The USW leadership says there was ‘nothing new’ in the offer to end the strike. Is this true?
This is completely false. Comments such as these are either ill-informed, ill-intended or both. The company demonstrated considerable flexibility to end the strike over the course of 10 days of mediated talks and enhanced its settlement offer substantially — significantly increasing the amount of money offered from the previous contract proposal in July. The USW leadership knows this. Improvements included wage increases totaling $0.80 an hour, automatic COLA roll-ins, a lower trigger on the bonus so it pays at lower nickel prices, pension improvements totaling $250 a month and a ‘return to production’ bonus of $3,000 per employee — all exceeding amounts provided in recent contracts to which the USW compares us, but seemingly not enough for a union that professes to simply want “the status quo.”

The USW, meanwhile, responded to that offer by verbally delivering a ‘break-off’ position (their term) through the mediator. Incredibly, the USW position on March 7 was more expensive than the very costly settlement proposal tabled by the union in July. Until that time we were hopeful of reaching a deal. The outcome, of course, was to push the two sides further apart.

Is the company willing to return to the bargaining table?
Our position hasn’t changed. From the day the strike began we have been open to exploring a path forward in negotiations. The USW leadership knows this. We thought we saw that path forward earlier this month and tabled a significant offer to end the strike. Unfortunately, that offer was rejected by the USW leadership before it was ever misrepresented to employees. The USW bargaining team provided nothing in return that indicates any interest in reaching a settlement. Unless the union position changes and aligns more closely to the needs of the business there’s little hope for a settlement or for further talks anytime soon.

How does the company respond to threats of violence by the USW leadership?
Violence has no place in the labor dispute between the company and the USW — it never has and never will. The USW has a legal right to strike and the company has a legal right to operate. Public comments by USW leaders predicting and implicitly encouraging violence are reckless, irresponsible and an affront to every law-abiding citizen in Ontario. The USW leadership knows this. No one should be expected to condone or tolerate this kind of behaviour.

Why won’t the company agree to binding arbitration?
As mentioned earlier, we spent a great deal of time and effort over the course of many months negotiating, informing the USW about the challenges facing our business in Ontario. Those challenges are very real, they are significant and they won’t be solved by choosing to ignore them — which is essentially what the USW is asking us to do. Our focus is, and always has been, on meeting those challenges, accepting necessary change and building a long-term, sustainable future. We have no interest in allowing a third party to make fundamental business decisions affecting the future viability of our business. The USW leadership knows this.