Reference no: EM133518535

Case Study: D-J Composites Dispute Just before Christmas on 20 December 2016, American-based D-J Composites, an aerospace firm, locked out approximately 30 employees in Gander. These employees were represented by their union, Unifor, Local 597. The main areas of contention between the parties related to wages and job security. There was even media discussion that the employer was seeking wage concessions as well as reductions in the union-seniority provisions. At the time of the labour dispute the pay level for D-J Composites workers was about $16.50 an hour relative to the national average of $35 for Unifor members employed in the aerospace sector. The relationship between the parties was contentious. The employer was, on two occasions, found by the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board to have engaged in unfair labour practices and bad-faith bargaining. The union, in media stories, referenced that the employer was union busting. About 10 months into the strike, in October 2017, the parties were making very little headway toward a settlement. While conciliation had been provided to the parties since August, the government announced, following a request from the union, the appointment of an independent mediator. Despite these third-party interventions, the dispute continued on with little progress toward a settlement. About 80 weeks into the strike, in July 2018, the workers learned that they were eligible for additional financial benefits. While unusual, the Employment Insurance (EI) commission ruled that the employees locked out were eligible for EI as the D-J Composites lockout did not meet the definition of a lockout under EI regulations. Workers were pleased with this decision as they were only earning about $250 a week in strike pay. While many locked-out employees had secured part-time employment in the community to bolster their financial situation during the dispute, the addition of EI payments provided some extra security for workers who had struggled financially, could not make mortgage payments, were borrowing money to sustain themselves and their families, and so on. The interactions between striking employees and replacement workers and managers received considerable media attention. Media stories noted that employees on the picket line were swearing and threatening to hurt non-union employees (including managers) as well as calling the replacement workers "scabs." The workers had been on the picket line for two full winters, and had faced the Newfoundland elements for more than 600 days. As summer ended in 2018, about 21 months into the strike, shortly after the Labour Day long weekend, tensions between employees on the picket line and replacement workers hit an all time high. The union launched a video via its social media channels titled "Meet the Scabs." This video showed the names and photos of replacement workers. Pubic and media reaction was swift. Some criticized the union's decision, feeling that the video was akin to bullying or harassment. Others noted that the purpose of a picket line was to prevent replacement workers and that the Supreme Court had ruled, back in 2013, that unions had a constitutional right to broadcast photographs of strikebreakers. The union, in media reports, noted that the video was a necessary tactic in an attempt to end the dispute. Between February and September 2018, when the union launched the scab video, the union had written three letters to the premier concerning the dispute. In October 2018, the lockout, which by then was 21 months old, was receiving increased political attention. The office of Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Dwight Ball informed Unifor that the employer had agreed to binding arbitration as a way to settle the strike. In fact, after meeting with the National President of Unifor, the premier noted that the potential of reconvening the legislature prior to the fall sitting for the purpose of passing legislation to force the parties into binding arbitration. This development was not celebrated by all. The NL Employers' Council raised concerns about the unprecedented potential of legislation that would force a private sector union and employer to accept binding arbitration to settle a labour dispute. In late November, the parties learned of the arbitrator's decision. Workers were expected to return to work by 13 December 2018. Sources: Barry (2017a, 2017b); CBC News (2018b); Glavin (2018); Jackman (2018); Kinsella (2018a, 2018b); Sampson (2018); Unifor (n.d., 2017b, 2018b).

Based on the above case reading, answer the following questions:

Question 1. Make a case summary/review of this scenario.

Question 2. Discuss the extent to which the three theories of strikes can be used to analyze this work stoppage. Also, list the potential causes of strike/lockout in the case presented.

Question 3. Do you agree with NL Employers' Council's concern regarding the potential of government legislation mandating binding arbitration in a private-sector dispute? Why or why not?

Question 4. Issues concerning picket lines and replacement workers evoke strong reactions from people. Do you agree with Unifor's decision to create and release a video concerning scab workers?