N.L. employers warn against pro-union law
Law banning replacement workers would be 'a dangerous piece of legislation'
A group representing employers in Newfoundland and Labrador says a 14-month-old strike at a nickel mine in the province shouldn’t be used as a pretext to create legislation banning replacement workers.
"There are only two jurisdictions in North America that have it. It's been rejected in Ontario. It's been rejected at the national level 11 times since 2000. It's been shown not to work, and it's a dangerous piece of legislation," said Richard Alexander, executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers’ Council.
A strike at Brazilian mining giant Vale’s nickel mine in Labrador began in August 2009. A group representing unionized workers in the province says the dispute has dragged on because Vale is using replacement workers — scabs, in union parlance.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour has been calling on the province to intervene and enact anti-replacement-worker legislation since at least July.
The employers' council said the strike shouldn’t be used as an argument for new legislation.
"For a third party to say they're going to use [the strike] to try and push a piece of labour legislation, to say that they're going to use that as a platform to try and push that legislation through, is irresponsible," said Alexander.
Premier Danny Williams has said the United Steelworkers union and Vale must reach an agreement by Oct. 22 or he'll appoint an industrial inquiry to try to resolve the strike.
Talks between the Steelworkers and Vale broke off in early October, after a mediator appointed by the government was unable to broker a settlement. The two sides remain far apart in the dispute, which has focused on wages and benefits.
Williams said he is willing to go further than appointing an industrial inquiry — including enacting legislation — to end the strike.
An industrial inquiry commission is empowered to "maintain and secure industrial peace." While it cannot force a collective agreement, the fact that its findings will be made public could be a formidable threat — and a possible source of embarrassment — to either side.