Fired strikers should have access to arbitration: Steelworkers

(34) Comments | Print | Report a typo | Contact the Editor
During a July 9 hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered both Steelworkers Local 6500 and Vale to return for another hearing July 13, in which both parties will outline their cases for how nine workers fired during a recent labour dispute will be dealt with. File photo.

During a July 9 hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered both Steelworkers Local 6500 and Vale to return for another hearing July 13, in which both parties will outline their cases for how nine workers fired during a recent labour dispute will be dealt with. File photo.

Jul 12, 2010- 1:00 PM

By: Heidi Ulrichsen - Sudbury Northern Life Staff

During a July 9 hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered both Steelworkers Local 6500 and Vale to return for another hearing July 13, in which both parties will outline their cases for how nine workers fired during a recent labour dispute will be dealt with.

The union wants the workers dealt with by a provincial arbitrator, but the company is arguing the labour board does not have the right to order arbitration, according to Steelworkers' spokesperson Bob Gallagher.

“(Vale's) position is that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has certain options open to them, but actually establishing arbitration is not one they would accept,” Gallagher said.

“The board is basically saying 'Wait a minute. The (labour relations act) says you have to try all reasonable options, and if we deem this is a reasonable option, then certainly that's the way we should proceed.' Vale is saying 'No.'

“So (the labour board) said 'Come in Tuesday morning, and let's hear your arguments.' They said 'Don't bring any evidence, this is about principle of law.'”

Myles Sullivan, a Steelworkers staff representative, said in a press release that “the insistence by the board may signal a determination to finally deal with this matter.”

The Steelworkers' lawyer, Brian Shell, said the union is pleased the labour board will hear the case tomorrow.

“We will be directing the board to important Canadian Charter principles, and to developments at the Supreme Court to support our position that it is illegal to insist that workers fired during a strike cannot access arbitration,” Shell said, in the press release.

“We do not accept that in our society a worker can be fired for whatever reason a struck employer considers appropriate, and have no recourse to arbitration. Striking is not the same as placing your job on the line.”

Vale spokesperson Steve Ball said he would not comment on any of the information in the Steelworkers' press release.

“I will say the Steelworkers were given until noon today to submit their arguments,” he said.

“We were given until 8 a.m. to agree or disagree with those facts as they see them, and to submit any facts of our own. The case will start formally tomorrow. It's for the lawyers to debate the rest of the points.”

Check back to NorthernLife.ca for more on this story as it becomes available.
Read More: Home > Sudbury News
(34) Comments | Print | Report a typo | Contact the Editor

Reader's Feedback

Editor’s Note:

NorthernLife.ca may contain content submitted by readers, usually in the form of article comments. All reader comments and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of NorthernLife.ca. The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that NorthernLife.ca has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to NorthernLife.ca to report any objectionable content by using the "report abuse" link found in the comments section of this web site.

34 Comments

  • Delaware 7/17/2010 8:37:09 AM - Report Abuse

    Sorry,noofus,but i wasnt around last summer.So,let me change,'unarmed'to 'mentally challenged'.Is that better?

    Does that describe you guys a bit better??

    P.S. My sister WAS right.You HAVE been at this since last summer.How sad........what an exciting life you must lead

  • noofie 7/16/2010 7:16:18 PM - Report Abuse

    Hey Delawhen
    Get your own material. The unarmed in a battle was mine from last summer with Mario.

  • Delaware 7/16/2010 4:39:50 PM - Report Abuse

    Do you lie awake all night coming up with these ridiculous comments? "hiding behind a union'????????? Thats their JOB..........to protect their due paying members.

    I used to enjoy our 'battle of wits'........unfortunately,you are unarmed.

  • Phillip Morris 7/16/2010 11:18:08 AM - Report Abuse

    The difference here is these guys are hiding behind a union for protection. If they had any honour, or were 100% sure of their innocence, they would have stepped aside when their problems bogged down negotiations.
    They got caught breaking the workplace rules, Ontario Laws, and Canadian Criminal Law. And instead of manning up, they want to cloud the issues with an emotional diatribe in front of a hand picked, labour friendly arbitrator? Yeah.

  • Delaware 7/16/2010 9:58:20 AM - Report Abuse

    Thats the first smart thing you have ever said

  • Phillip Morris 7/15/2010 11:46:32 AM - Report Abuse

    Every worker in Canada has the right, in Labour Law to take their employer to court for what they believe is Unjust Dismissal. (Look up Section 240 of the Canada Labour Code)

  • Delaware 7/14/2010 11:50:14 PM - Report Abuse

    As usual,Noofie,what is your point?.Im just curious.......are you on welfare? the reason i ask is.......its usually people who are NOT working,who have plenty of time to spend hours researching material on the computer.

    And Phil,thank you for your ridiculous comment.........'workers hiding behind the union'.Its the union's JOB to fight for the worker. If YOU were to be charged with something,and you hired an attorney to defend you,should i say........you are HIDING behind your lawyer?Thats his JOB for god's sake,the same way its the union 's job to fight for their due paying workers.

    I realize you have nothing logical to say,but im really feeling embarrassed for you

  • noofie 7/14/2010 8:44:53 PM - Report Abuse

    Here you go delawho. Its a lot more words than you're no doubt used to without coloured pictures to help out but have a go at this.
    This Bill has substantial bearing on the strike and perhaps, if what I'm hearing is correct, may even show up on Brady Street.

    "Ontario passes workplace harassment and violence legislation
    On December 10, 2009, the provincial government passed Bill 168 - The Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace), 2009. Bill 168 amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to address issues of workplace harassment and violence.

    "Workplace violence" is defined in Bill 168 as:

    (a) the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker, in a workplace, that causes or could cause physical injury to the worker,

    (b) an attempt to exercise physical force against a worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker,

    (c) a statement or behaviour that it is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker.

    "Workplace harassment" is defined in Bill 168 as "engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome".

    Employers will be required to develop written policies with respect to both workplace violence and workplace harassment and must review those policies at least once per year. Employers must also develop and maintain programs to implement the policies and to deal with incidents and complaints of workplace violence and harassment.

  • Phillip Morris 7/14/2010 7:28:34 PM - Report Abuse

    Again, the facts are all right there Deluh.
    Even the section of law for you to see.

    What is your continued response?
    The Deluh Dance.

    Deflect, deny. Ignore then insult.

    Forget the facts. Keep dancing. You'd think after 12 months ending in humiliation you'd change your dead end ways? Only 5 more years and you can....cough....try again!

  • Delaware 7/14/2010 6:13:09 PM - Report Abuse

    "Honour'????Philly,i CANT imagine YOU.........even know the meaning of that word

  • Phillip Morris 7/14/2010 4:32:32 PM - Report Abuse

    "This case has to do with whether a WORKER has the RIGHT to defend himself… "

    Every worker in Canada has the right, in Labour Law to take their employer to court for what they believe is Unjust Dismissal. (Look up Section 240 of the Canada Labour Code)

    The difference here is these guys are hiding behind a union for protection. If they had any honour, or were 100% sure of their innocence, they would have stepped aside when their problems bogged down negotiations.
    They got caught breaking the workplace rules, Ontario Laws, and Canadian Criminal Law. And instead of manning up, they want to cloud the issues with an emotional diatribe in front of a hand picked, labour friendly arbitrator? Yeah.
    Again, if they were soooooo sure they are hard done by, and this is a slam dunk, take the issue to Labour Court as Unjust Dismissal. (We all know how bad that'll end)

  • noofie 7/14/2010 8:09:14 AM - Report Abuse

    There are two things happening regarding the 9.

    One group of 3 members of the 9 are criminally charged with assaulting the jogger on Southview. Their court case began yesterday and has been remanded to late August.

    These 3 belong to a group of 9 who have been fired by Vale for actions on the picket line which is on company property or for workplace related breaches of company conduct and Ontario law regarding workplace harassment.

  • camoman 7/14/2010 12:26:02 AM - Report Abuse

    You people have to realize that this case has nothing to do whether these 8 or 9 are innocent or guilty…
    This case has to do with whether a WORKER has the RIGHT to defend himself…
    As of today NO worker has a Law to say a person has the Right to defend himself…
    As of today the worker only has the recourse for a civil suit…
    That’s why this case has significance…
    When the government passed a law that stated: A worker has the RIGHT to refuse UNSAFE work…
    That LAW caused a huge uproar in the corporate business affairs…
    Now can you imagine if a LAW was passed that gave a WORKER THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF….
    .
    TOTAL ANARCARY…

  • northside 7/13/2010 6:15:29 PM - Report Abuse

    Amazing the hold Leo and company have on some folks.==as stated by PM==unbeliveable how people can be so guillable..Not saying much for union people is it..Just follow..Don't think of your famalies..Don't think for yourself..And they wonder why people call them lemmings.....

  • northside 7/13/2010 6:08:27 PM - Report Abuse

    Maggie_1===The police did not want to get involved..Just look what they did at the blockades after the Judge said to open up the lines..Nothing, when they should have any number of these guys locked up..When the police won't enforce the law, such as these guys slashing tires, painting of cars and no arrests,,So to say they should be charged by the police,,it just dosen't work that way,,not sure why,,My thoughts on this I will keep to myself ..However,,Vale is right to fire these guys because they don't want them on the property because of their conduct..Would you want hooligans working for you..Not likely.....

  • Phillip Morris 7/13/2010 5:48:36 PM - Report Abuse

    "I am under the opinion that the legal ramifications of this ongoing legal action WILL be nothing short of precedent setting!!!"
    Yeah, just like you were sooooo sure you'd bring Vale to it's knees.

    6500 still has some sheep left that'll follow their masters. It spelled near disaster for the local, yet the Kool Aid drinkers still hold some string of hope they can salvage anything from the lost strike.
    Amazing the hold Leo and company have on some folks.

  • Maggie_1 7/13/2010 5:14:45 PM - Report Abuse

    Labour Relations Board have no business making decisions about these nine men. They were not working at the time and they were on strike. Whatever these nine men did they should be charged like any other criminal and that is by the police department. If that wasn't done, then it should be laid to rest and have these men put back to work. While at work their jobs will be on the line and they will have to work for the wages that they get, if not, they'll be gone soon enough.

  • northside 7/13/2010 4:23:36 PM - Report Abuse

    If the ruling is for Vale it would make 6500s next strike in 5 yrs. a lot easier on everyone..Idiots would not be so quick to be idiots........

  • camoman 7/13/2010 1:50:56 PM - Report Abuse

    I for one shall remain optimistic, until the official ruling …I was nowhere around these individuals when the ALLEGED acts were committed, which resulted in these people being terminated…I heard many RUMORS to the fact, but speculation and conjecture should not be the basis to convict someone…I think vale and many others must realize that there are laws in Canada that protect us from just this…Who knows maybe vale can fire me for …say my political affiliations (I could be a closet Lib. Or Tory)…
    .
    I believe the FACTS will come out for everyone to see...
    Or at least I hope so...
    .
    I am under the opinion that the legal ramifications of this ongoing legal action WILL be nothing short of precedent setting!!!
    And I for one, am anxiously awaiting the outcome…

  • noofie 7/13/2010 1:35:18 PM - Report Abuse

    The "3 Thugs" had a day in court today..Next date is in August sometime.

    They're sure getting their share of the cost of the Ontario legal system what with court dates and OLB Hearings.

  • spud2_1 7/13/2010 1:06:58 PM - Report Abuse

    Dont get to anxious about it, this could take awhile. Even if the OLRB comes back and says yes arbitration can be used as an option for rectifying these 9, the company can then file appeals on that decision alone. They can appeal it all the way to the supreme court of canada, which means the case of the 9 fired wont be even looked at by the OLRB until all appeals on the terminology of the labor act are judicated on. After all that is heard then the case of the 9 can be brought back before the OLRB for a decision, and if the decision is that these guys were unjustly fired, then the end result is the same these guys are gone if the company decides to not abide by the decision. After all that then the 9 can seek a judgement against the company for lost wages and severance subject to the the date of the OLRB decision. Once that is heard then they get their cash judgement. How long could this all take?....I dont know...but a case concerning vale and resisents from port coubourne in 1986 just got its passed judgement last week wasnt it. So, dont hold your breath, we will eventually see a decision on this sometime in the future, someday it will pop up in the paper, will anyone care?....I dont know...but if I were the 9 I wouldnt be waiting for ever to go get another job...I sure hope the union has a job for those guys, because depending on their age and physical condition they might not get another shot at another mine.

  • camoman 7/13/2010 10:55:10 AM - Report Abuse

    If you people would quit your CARPING, and realize the significance of this case...

    The legal ramifications of this legal action will be nothing short of PRESIDENT setting…
    There are Gaping Holes in our labour laws that this case will hopefully address…
    This will set out protocols that HAVE to be followed…
    What a company can and cannot do…
    And I for one, am anxiously awaiting the outcome…

  • northside 7/13/2010 8:13:43 AM - Report Abuse

    wallbanger,,your post is right on the money..union radicals will not let the truth cloud their thoughts..Typical of the lemming family..Follow the leader..Over the cliff we go..Well the lemmings have 5 years to digest this contract and when next contract is due and Vale asks them to sit down and discuss their plans for the future maybe they won't start crying no concessions and status quo..5 years for them to learn that strikes don't pay......

  • cellardoor 7/13/2010 1:22:05 AM - Report Abuse

    wallbanger....you really think the union is the one using intimidation tactics? How do you figure? Camoman just pointed out clearly who's the Godly one of this battle. Vale is the multi-billion dollar corporation, who's investors are the same who have been CLEARLY linked to aiding in the BP disaster (and by helping, I mean their contract works were working on the rig weeks before it exploded).

    seriously now, do you your research on vale before you spit your word vomit. Clearly many of you are just taking their side because..well you're probably paid by them first off, and you don't know any better.

    Apparently the city is going to be in debt next year. I wonder why. If the strikers are going back to work and Vale is going to be EXPLOITING US FOR OUR RESOURCES...why aren't we entitled to reap what we sow? Why don't we, as a community, get a share of the profits in this case? It's OUR CITY OUR RESOURCES yet we aren't entitled to any of it? Why is that fair?

  • camoman 7/12/2010 11:40:31 PM - Report Abuse

    QUOTE:“The board is basically saying 'Wait a minute. The (labour relations act) says you have to try all reasonable options, and if we deem this is a reasonable option, then certainly that's the way we should proceed.'
    Vale is saying 'No.'...
    The city of Sudbury passed a by-law stating that vale could not build a city inside their compound to house their SCABS...
    vale basically said "I don't have to follow your laws if I don't want to"...
    .
    I am vale the almighty...
    I am above all law...
    All must comply to my demands...
    If not I'll fire you ,sue you, or both...

  • wallbanger 7/12/2010 11:07:59 PM - Report Abuse

    this strike was way to long because of nasty things milantants done. the sheep were held hostage by the militants agenda. hope the nine get fired if they are guilty. you only reap what u sow. unions are an anti democratic force who use intimidation tactics to get there own way

  • northside 7/12/2010 10:06:17 PM - Report Abuse

    Cliff_1===keyboard warriors,,That sounds OK...thank you.....

  • Cliff_1 7/12/2010 8:51:51 PM - Report Abuse

    ...and here go the keyboard warriors again!! Good job guys, Vale would be a hole in some Brazilians back yard if it wasn't for all you helping to defend it! *rolls eyes* and before you get any ideas, no i'm not 6500 or any other union.

  • noofie 7/12/2010 8:07:37 PM - Report Abuse

    hey....their signs that littered the landscape said it better than I could have.

    Sudbury Supports Working Families

    It would have made sense to say "Families on Strike" but Working???

  • northside 7/12/2010 7:22:53 PM - Report Abuse

    One good thing about the end of this wasted strike is we will not have to put up with their useless rallies and the clutter of those support signs that most people never supported...Actually, most people never supported the strike in the first place..Who with any brain at all would support a strike in the middle of a recession and the nickel markets in the dumps...Only a union like the 6500 guys would support such stupidity,,only them,,look at 2020,,they knew the situation and used their brains and continued to work looking after their famalies.................

  • joy_3 7/12/2010 7:09:35 PM - Report Abuse

    Just mayb the OLB will force them to be fired.

  • noofie 7/12/2010 6:24:15 PM - Report Abuse

    Does the OLB have the authority to force Vale to rehire these 9? I think not.
    Further, I've seen Inco and Vale Inco building a file on someone who is an unsatisfactory employee. I doubt that the "firing" of these guys was arbitrary and without a proper file on them.

    Regarding the 3 hoodlums, it seems to me that fighting due to work related issues is grounds for dismissal. The fight does not have to take place on company property, it must only be proven to have been due to work related issues.

    Tito said they're not coming back. I believe he meant it.

  • person_1 7/12/2010 6:21:37 PM - Report Abuse

    Just to add: MCTV just announced on the news that another FOREIGN mining corporation is buying in Northern Ontario!

    Well 6500, where is your racist chanting and jeering now? Oh yeah, in your back pockets because you have to get to work in the next couple of weeks! To hell with anyone else, right?!! After all, without your spending, Sudbury can't survive without you!!

    See you all in five years when you are on strike yet again! That is if you can survive the next five years! Karma is a B1#*H!

  • person_1 7/12/2010 5:58:37 PM - Report Abuse

    This is obviously only one side of the whole story. The union is still using racist propaganda to makes its' point:

    “We do not accept that in our society a worker can be fired for whatever reason a struck employer considers appropriate, and have no recourse to arbitration. Striking is not the same as placing your job on the line.”

    Just who's society are they making reference to?

    And to continue the comment with "striking is not the same as placing your job on the line" is absolute crap! Striking means a refusal to accept the contract at hand to go to work! Given, and it is a given, the attitude of Local 6500 during this strike, they have, and are very willing, put their jobs on the line!

    Five years can be a long time when Karma comes into play! What kind of society does Local 6500 make reference to: Their own: Violent outbursts, Aggrevated assaults, Damage to property, Arrogance, and just plain Stupidity!!! Scabmine (Coleman Mine) Scabury (Sudbury) Union Thug (T-shirts and other wear) The list goes on!!

    Hope the green jumpsuits fit nicely and enjoy your luchtime! I heard the lunchroom is to be envied!! Enjoy watching your movies while working afternoon/graveyard! Five years!!!!! Five years!!!! Five years!!!
    "Striking is not the same as placing your job on the line.”
    Five years!!! Five long years!!
    (in the background is the echo of Leo Girard's famous words: "We will fill every jail cell in the city if necessary") Arbitration......Really? LOL Whatever the outcome of this; Vale will not accept these nine willingly. If the ORLB says they have to by law, then so be it! But only because they were told to by law, and not by choice!!! Remember that 6500!!! You made your bed, so lie in it! And the membership will be the pillows and blankets as they are not smart enough to see bedbugs that reside within!!
FacebookTwitterRSSVideophotoNewsletterMobile