by

Safety is a team sport

From snowboarders to mountain climbers and skydivers, people have long sought the thrill of height. Two things help people who seek the rush of extreme activities that scare the hell out of most of us do their thing safely:

  1. Training
  2. Trust in their Gear

Properly maintained and employed safety gear and training with experts are standard. Thrill seekers know the consequences of an accident can be devastating. So they mitigate it.

The consequences of workplace accidents can be equally devastating. Workplace attitudes towards avoiding accidents should be no different.

Too many in the workforce skip or rush through those steps in the name of efficiency, or even laziness.

As a result, falls are the number one cause of critical worker injuries at construction sites in Ontario.

14 workers lost their lives falling from heights in 2015, leaving behind parents, children, siblings, and friends.

The sad reality is that too many are willing to push safety boundaries at work. Whether they’re due to a lack of training or a disregard for safety equipment, these injuries and deaths are preventable – the key is driving the message home to all parties.

We are ALL responsible for workplace safety.

Employers and supervisors, for providing comprehensive training, equipment and rescue plans.
Employees, for following guidelines, wearing their equipment and both refusing and reporting unsafe situations.

It’s easy to become complacent after years on the job, but it only takes one mistake to change everything.

Now, ignoring safety isn’t just dangerous or unethical–it’s also illegal. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), violators can be prosecuted resulting in heavy fines or even jail time.

Please spread the word and encourage your fellow workers to stay safe.

We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Let us know how we can help, and please share any questions you may have about workplace protection.

When it comes to creating safe work environments, we’re all in this together.

by

federal elections

I%20will%20vote%20banner Federal Elections 2015
  

On October 19th, federal elections will be held. In accordance with the Canada Elections Act,  all employees are entitled to three (3) consecutive hours to cast their vote during voting hours on polling day, from 9:30AM to 9:30PM.

 

For this reason, by October 9, Workforce Management will adjust the schedule of regular full-time technicians to respect these arrangements. The release period will be coded POP and employees will be released for these hours only, without a pay reduction. The schedule of part-time employees will be set on DD-1.

 

Only these shifts need to be adjusted:

 

o    8AM to 7PM (a 30 minute release is necessary)

o    10AM to 7PM (a 30 minute release is necessary)

o    10AM to 9PM (a 2:30 release is necessary)

 

The following shifts do not need to be adjusted:

 

o    8AM to 5PM

o    9AM to 6PM

o    1PM to 9PM

 

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Can an employee request a different shift modification than the one planned on his schedule? No, the planned schedules were made in consideration with business needs and the obligation for employees to have three (3) consecutive hours to cast their vote during voting hours on polling day. The time coded as POP cannot be changed nor postponed.

 

Am I going to be paid if my schedule is modified to go vote? Yes, even if you are released to go cast your vote, you will be paid for the entire shift, like any other day.

 

If an employee has questions, to whom should they ask them? The employee can address his questions to his manager.

 

If a manager has questions, to whom should they ask them? The manager can contact his Labour Relations consultant.

by

Why I’m voting NDP

orange wave1

I recently spent a day canvassing with NDP’s Peggy Nash. I’ve worked with MPs Andrew Cash and Rob Oliphant too. In support of their campaigns or just as a colleague fighting for workers’ rights and the public interest.

Maybe it seems strange that I’ll support both NDP and Liberal candidates. The thing is; I’m interested in people who stand up for the working Canadian. People who understand our membership and our industry.

When it does come to party politics, I want a federal government dedicated to keeping jobs in Canada. A government that supports a healthy telecommunications sector accessible to consumers and communities.

Not Harper’s Conservatives, in other words.

Harper has attacked unions, undermined health and safety laws. And he’s made foreign ownership of Canadian companies easier. Now Harper’s talking about international trade deals – without saying how they’ll work.

In our industry, the Conservatives have offered up telecom spectrum to Americans without reciprocity. They’re threatening Canadian jobs. They’ve also failed to regulate the sector in the public interest. Better access to reliable and affordable telecom services isn’t assured either.

The NDP inspires confidence.

They’ve called the Conservatives out on the secrecy behind the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership. And they’re only in favour of foreign investment policies if they support Canadian jobs.

They’ve also pledged to reintroduce the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. Abolished by the Conservatives, it ensures adequate compensation for tradespeople working on federal contracts.

The NDP is committed to repeal Bills C-377 and C-525, which make it difficult for workers to join a union. These bills also cost unions and other professional organizations millions of dollars in unnecessary red tape.

The NDP supports affordable childcare, a universal drug plan, fair wages, and human rights. They seem to understand the range of issues confronting working Canadian families today.

People as committed to public interest are inspiring.

11221943_1000583366679826_2475713335460315874_n

Did you know she ran ten times before getting elected? That’s commitment. That’s grit.

She’s also traveled the world, led union negotiations, and fought for women’s rights.

Peggy stands up for working people, pushing workplace and social equity.

Most of all, she’s there on the street in Parkdale, participating in her community and listening to what matters to her constituents.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure Stephen Harper isn’t listening to people like us.

Tonight, I’ll be out in my riding supporting Andrew Cash.

Voting day is October 19th – so WHOEVER you support, it’s important to get out and mark that ballot!

11903782_1000583330013163_4143170470376802753_n

 

by

RE: REVIEW OF DECISION (ART 18, SEC B) ELECTION APPEAL (ART 15, SEC B, PAR 5D) – UNIFOR LOCAL 1996-0, EXECUTIVE ELECTION APPEAL I

I have reviewed all information that I have received on behalf of the National President’s Office. The Committee on Constitutional Matters requested written correspondence from the Local Union and the appellants and has now completed its investigation into their request for Review of Decision of your election.

In addition, the Committee on Constitutional Matters contacted the Unifor Ottawa Office for information relative to the approval process of Local Union By-Law amendments prior to the creation of Unifor.

On September 30, 2014 I responded to a member of Local 1996-O by email who had copied me on a question to you regarding the nomination form available to members in your Local Union. He directly asked me for my input and a ruling on the attached form through email. By this time, two other members had also contacted me by email.

I subsequently responded to the member regarding the form just as I do any other members or Leadership who contact me. I provided an opinion as to whether or not the form and the intent behind the by-law are in fact constitutional according to the Unifor Constitution.

My response was as follows:

I have reviewed the attached document relative to elections that may be forthcoming within the Local Union. I would be more than happy to discuss this and any other concern that may originate prior to the elections taking place because as we all know, Unifor is an entirely new Union with different rules and procedures than existed in each of our predecessor Unions.

In reviewing the attached, I can say that it is my opinion that the provision to require a member to currently hold an elected Chief Steward position in order to seek an Executive Board Office such as those listed would be unconstitutional. I am not aware of what is contained in the Locals by-laws as a revised set has not been sent to me as of yet for approval but I can say if that requirement is contained within, it will not be approved.

As you can see from the above noted response, I indicated that the provision restricting Executive Officer positions to currently elected Chief Stewards would be considered unconstitutional and would not be approved by the National Executive Board. I did however say that I was not aware of what was contained in the Local’s existing by-laws as I did not have a copy when questioned.

I have since been provided with a copy and clearly that provision is contained within Article 13, Section 1 which reads;

ARTICLE 13 – NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF LOCAL EXECUTIVE AND STEWARDS

Section 1- Nominations

a) Local Executive shall be nominated from the existing Chief Stewards in October every third year of term.

b) Chief Stewards shall be nominated from the existing Stewards, in April every third year of term. The nominee must be a currently existing Steward for a minimum of one year.

c) Stewards shall be nominated in March of every third year of term.

In addition, you have provided me with a copy of a letter from Brother Dave Coles approving the above noted by-law change in December of 2012.

Also, it was raised by the appellants that the by-law change didn’t follow the required procedure with the former CEP for approval although I did not find that to be the case. The letter dated December 10, 2012 from Brother Dave Coles clearly acknowledges receipt of letters from XXXXXXXXX, Recording Secretary of the Local dated November 26, 2012 and that those bylaw changes were approved in accordance with the procedure in the CEP Constitution at the time.

I thank the Local for recognizing at the December 14, 2014 General Membership meeting that the by-law as it exists today is too restrictive. In addition on February 26, 2015 you sent the National Union a summary to help clarify the sequence of events which included a statement as follows; “With the benefit of hindsight, and as explained in more detail below, we now feel that this provision is too restrictive and should be changed”. As previously stated the Local will have to amend that particular provision prior to sending revised by-laws to the National Executive Board for approval. Article 13, Section 1 a) is considered unconstitutional based on the Unifor Constitution.

Under the merger agreements between our former Unions, both CEP and CAW, Local Unions will be given up to three years to conform to the Unifor Constitution. There are approximately 760 Local Unions within Unifor who need to revise their by-laws. Many Locals have taken the approach that if they reach out for assistance or advice on a particular item contained in their by-laws, and find it to be in contradiction of the Unifor Constitution, they forego or ignore that particular provision. Your Local has chosen not to and wishes to rely on your approved by-laws and declare the election final with all Executive Officers elected by acclamation. The National Union intends to respect the merger agreements signed by our former Unions and therefore does not intend to compel the Local to hold new elections in accordance with the Unifor Constitution at this time.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, Local 1996-O elections will stand as final under the existing by-laws of the Local Union; however the term of office is being shortened so that a new election for the four Executive Officer positions must be completed by no later than July 31, 2016, which is prior to the next Unifor Constitutional Convention. Should a vacancy develop with regards to any of the current Executive positions, an election must take place in accordance with the Unifor Constitution.

I can be reached at 1.800.204.3121 Ext. 2224 if you have any questions.

In solidarity,

RickGarant_Sig

Rick Garant,
Director of Constitutional Matters
Unifor