[et_pb_section][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”2_3″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left”]<\/p>\n
Our 100th year has not been without turmoil either, as the Local 1
\nfought a costly, and ultimately unsuccessful, four and one-half month
\nlockout against Labatt, during which the Local leadership attempted
\nto disaffiliate from the Union and join with the Labourers International
\nUnion of North America.<\/p>\n
Key to the difficulties faced during this dispute was that the Toronto
\nmembership had reached a memorandum of agreement in January 2002 (which
\nwas ratified by 95% of the employees in that bargaining unit), while
\nthe London membership rejected an offer with the same monetary features,
\nbut different language, by a 97% margin on the same day.<\/p>\n
As a result the Union found itself, for the first time in its history,
\nwith one of its Labatt units working while the other was locked-out.
\nAlthough the Toronto membership successfully banned overtime, the London
\nLocal leadership decided that it did not want to belong to a Union where
\none Local could work while they were locked out. As a result, the membership
\nin London voted to disaffiliate and join the Labourers, while the Union
\nas a whole asserted that there was no right to disaffiliate. The entire
\ndispute ended up in the hands of the Labour Relations Board, and, as
\na result, the Company took the position that it could not bargain with
\neither Union until the Board made a ruling.<\/p>\n
After four months of lockout, and before the Board’s ruling, the Union
\nparties agreed that this Union could negotiate with the employer. These
\nnegotiations failed to reach a Memorandum, but the last offer was put
\nto the London members, and was narrowly accepted by one vote. The offer
\ndid contain some improvements over the January offer in the language
\narea, but was one year longer than the 6 year Toronto agreement and
\ncontained less Pension and less guaranteed wage increases than the January
\noffer.<\/p>\n
At the prompting of the Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board
\nall parties to the disaffiliation dispute entered into an agreement
\nin which it was agreed that our Union continued to represent the employees
\nof the London brewery and that the Local had no right to disaffiliate
\nfrom the Union.<\/p>\n
In order to build back the support this Union has traditionally had
\nin Local 1 Brother George Redmond took a leave of absence from his position
\nas Business Agent and accepted appointment as President of Local 1 for
\na term, which will expire December 31, 2003. This Union will meet the
\nchallenge of winning back the confidence of its members in London.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"