The New Democrats opposed the legislation, which uses a final offer selection process where the two parties submit their final offers and an arbitrator, appointed by Labour Minister Lisa Raitt, chooses a winner.
As well, the NDP MPs, who staged a 58-hour filibuster, are upset with the legislation that imposes a lower wage settlement than one offered by Canada Post during the bargaining process. The legislation passed the House of Commons on Saturday night and then the Senate on Sunday.
How can it do both? If the settlement is imposed by legislation, what do they need an arbitrator for? If they're going to an arbitrator, why is the legislation imposing a settlement?
(Also, is it even normal for back to work legislation to impose a settlement? That seems kind of beyond the scope of legislation. I always thought it just forced people to actually go back to work and get the work done, without caring about whether or not the collective bargaining was resolved.)
2 comments:
Also, is it even normal for back to work legislation to impose a settlement?
To my knowledge, no. It's more common to impose binding arbitration.
But then that wouldn't hurt the union as much.
I don't understand that clause in the first paragraph, either. There's some sloppy reporting going on there, I think.
Post a Comment