On February 2, for the first time in almost 15 years, the Halifax Transit system faced a strike. The largest transit system in Atlantic Canada was shut down with all 300 buses and three ferries at a standstill. The 750 employees represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union(ATU), Local 508, walked off the job after the parties failed to reach a settlement. Almost 100, 000 commuters would now need to find alternative transportation in the midst of winter.

The most contentious issue at the time of the strike was the management-proposed shift scheduling system called rostering. Previous collective agreements had a scheduling system based on seniority and workers could pick different shifts during a week. This system had been in place for decades. In the newly proposed rostering system, workers would be assigned to weekly schedules. The union felt that this weekly schedule reduced worker flexibility as members tried to maintain a work-life balance. Management believed that the rostering system was needed to reduce costs, including the high overtime costs of their current scheduling system.

Immediately prior to the strike, the Halifax Regional Municipality bargaining team presented two offers. The first included a wage increase of 6 percent and rostering; the second included a 3. 5 percent wage increase but no rostering. Neither offer was accepted by the union, and a strike occurred. Within a few hours of the strike, media stories were quoting citizens concerned about the impact of the strike on commuters, calling for transit to be declared an essential service(thereby reducing or eliminating strikes), and even speculating on the likelihood of back-to-work legislation.

On February 14, with little headway being made, the union members voted unanimously in favor of binding arbitration to end the strike. The City rejected that offer, opting instead to seek the assistance of a conciliator appointed by the provincial government.

About three weeks into the strike, the City made what it called its final offer. The offer included 14 million in wages($1, 500 signing bonus, 2. 25 percent a year for four years) but would save the City$8 million in efficiencies(largely due to the inclusion of rostering). The union members voted to reject the offer and the strike continued on in the midst of a cold winter. Commuters during this time moved to ridesharing, walking, and in some cases working from home or not going to work or classes as they attempted to cope with the strike.

After a 41-day strike, almost 90 percent of union members voted in favor of a deal negotiated by the parties with the aid of a conciliator. City councilors too voted 19 to 2 in support of the deal. The final agreement included a wage of packagefor workers worth $14. 5 million over five years and efficiencies for the City in the range of $8. 9 million. In terms of the specifics of the agreement, employees would receive a lump-sum payment of$4, 000 in year one, and 2 percent increases in years two through five. However, new hires would now take five years to reach the top of the salary scale versus the 18 months it took in the old contract. The City accomplished its goal of the rostering schedule system; however, it agreed that the union would have at least two opportunities to provide feedback on the rostering system before it becomes operational in November.

While the majority of both sides were satisfied with the deal, not all were. Some union members felt that junior employees had lost the most in the strike and that little had been gained following a 40-day strike. At least one City councilor felt that scheduling should have remained solely a management decision and that the union should have had the opportunity to comment on the new system during the development phase.

As the transit system became operational, both sides realized that public opinion had been damaged. Estimates were that 5 percent of commuters will not return to the transit system after the strike. As a result, a public relations campaign was being launched and the City was offering free transit services during the month of March at an estimated cost of $1. 5 million in lost revenue.

Questions

1. Media reports tend to call all work stoppages" strikes."Please justify if this case represents a strike or a lockout.

2. Please discuss the extent to which the three theories of strikes can be used to analyze this work stoppage.

3. On the basis of the list of potential causes of strikes presented in this chapter, what do you feel caused this strike?

4. It is arguably society's more vulnerable members (low-income earners, students, seniors,etc. )who are most impacted by labor disputes involving public transportation. The case makes reference to back-to-work legislation and essential service provisions. Do you feel that transit workers should be able to strike or do you feel that other dispute resolution procedures should be used as strike replacements?

5. Do you feel the proposed PR campaign and free transit during the month of March will minimize the loss of transit users post-strike?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 Thus case certainly represents a strike as the work was stopped by the union themselves and not by ... View the full answer