(Montreal) A union that had contested the decision of a CIUSSS to cancel union leaves to assign certain union representatives to tasks in health establishments, because of the lack of staff, has just lost its case.
Posted at 2:24 p.m.
The Administrative Labor Tribunal rejected the union complaint of obstruction, considering that the CIUSSS had little choice to act as it did, given the lack of staff during weekends last July.
The union, attached to the CSN, represents 7,200 members in around 100 facilities. He had filed a complaint of obstruction of his activities against the Integrated University Health and Social Services Center (CIUSSS) of Mauricie–Centre-du-Québec. He accused him of having canceled union leaves which he had already authorized.
At the end of last June, the CIUSSS had contacted the union to inform it of its difficulties in filling certain shifts during the weekends of July, particularly for beneficiary attendants and intervention.
“Fourteen union representatives hold one or other of these positions, but only four of them will be affected by deferrals or cancellations of releases, for a total of seven and a half days, on the day of the filing of this complaint,” the Tribunal said in its decision.
During the hearing, the CIUSSS recounted all the steps it had taken before deciding to cancel the union releases already authorized: it had checked with the manager that the replacements were necessary; he had checked the availability of employees, including overtime; he had moved the flying teams; he had implemented the contingency plan (reorganization of work to ensure safe care); he had contacted the employees on the recall list, out of availability; he had moved the training or orientation activities.
The union also criticized the employer for not sending it the contingency plans, which would have allowed it to ascertain staffing needs. He doubted that the employer had done everything possible to avoid compromising union leaves, says administrative judge Nancy St-Laurent.
In her decision, she emphasizes that “it is not because the actions of the employer disrupt certain union activities that there is necessarily a contravention of section 12 of the Code” (obstruction).
“The evidence rather reveals that the employer maintained the vast majority of previously authorized union leaves. Only a few have been canceled or postponed due to exceptional circumstances related to the 7e wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of staff among beneficiary attendants and intervention agents, ”argues the administrative judge.
“There is no reason to doubt the reasons given by the employer to justify its decision. It should also be remembered that this solution was only considered as a last resort and for the sole purpose of avoiding service failures. The low number of cancellations or postponements of union leaves also demonstrates that this is not a management method aimed at hindering union activities, quite the contrary,” she concludes.