uncharted.ca

LABOUR STRIFE AT MIRACLE FOOD MART

In 1993-94 a province-wide strike occurred at 63 Miracle Food Mart stores in Ontario. Lasting over three months, from November 18, 1993 to February 21, 1994, it is considered to be one of the longest strikes in the history of retail in Canada. A total of 6500 workers (1700 full-time and 4800 part-time) represented by UFCW Locals 175/633 went out across the province.

The actions of the union leadership during the strike clearly demonstrated its business-unionist roots. Not only did the union negotiate an agreement that entailed major concessions by full-time and part-time workers, but it also employed questionable ratification procedures to ensure membership acceptance of the agreement. With respect to the concessions, major take backs were applied both to part-time and full-time workers. Ostensibly, the strike was meant to resist concessions and maintain industry standards, but the outcome of negotiations only reinforced segmentation between full and part-time workers, depressed wage rates, undermined conditions of work, and eroded the power of the union as the employer simply ignored the terms of the new agreement. Three major items negotiated in the contract included: (1) wage concessions; (2) a buy-out programme for full-time and part-time employees; and (3) the introduction of a new part-time wage categories, including the courtesy clerk.

With respect to wage concessions, UFCW and A&P negotiated $1.75/hr across-the-board wage cuts for all full-time and part-time employees. For full-time workers, this amounts to approximately a loss of $80 per week, while the loss to part-time employees depends on the eligible hours of work per week. The buy-out policy affected both full-time and part-time employees.

As was the case at Safeway, the aim of the buy-out programme was to reduce the full-time workforce. A&P wanted to eliminate 700 full-time positions at Miracle Food Mart. The volunteer buy-out programme offered $1500 for every year of service for full-time employees, up to a maximum of $35,000. Under the terms of the buy-out agreement, a full-timer could accept the cash settlement, and then return to Miracle Food Mart as a « new » part-time employee at minimum wage and no benefits. The provisions in the collective agreement stipulate that « new » part-time employees or new hires are only eligible to work a maximum of 16 hours per week. Moreover, the wage grid starts at $6.70 an hour with a maximum wage of $9.60 per hour after 42 months of service. Lastly, a full-timer accepting the buy-out payment loses his/her seniority with the company. Therefore, there is no guarantee the « new hire » will be scheduled to work the maximum 16 hours per week. Another option under the buy-out programme for full-time workers allows a full-timer to forego the buy-out payment and return to work under the part-time wage schedule valid prior to ratification. Under this arrangement, the employee retains his/her seniority and is entitled to work a maximum 22.4 hours per week, depending on availability. The wage grid for the « old part-time » classification offers a maximum of $11.95 hour.

The buy-out programme for part-time employees was similar to that for full-time, but offered less money. Part-timers could accept $500 for every year worked, up to a maximum of $5,000. Again, if a part-timer accepted the buy-out, they could return to work as a « new hire ». Unlike full-time employees, though, there are restrictions on the number of hours a buy-out part-timer can work. As stipulated in the collective agreement, the eligible maximum number of hours of work per week is calculated as the average number of hours worked per week from May 1993 to November 1993 (6 months prior to the strike). In most instances, part-timers accepting the buy-out will be working less than 22.4 hours per week, which was the maximum prior to the strike, and probably less than 16 hours a week, which is the maximum for previous full-time employees. For instance, one part-time cashier interviewed said that her average was calculated as 15 hours per week, giving her earnings of approximately $100 a week. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that if a part-time employee accepts the buy-out she will be rehired, and even if she is rehired, she starts as a new hire with no seniority.

Finally, it must be stressed that another critical dimension of the buy-out programme is that 60 percent of the « hours » freed up by the elimination of 700 full-time jobs are available to the « new hire » part-time classification. The remaining 40 percent of the 25,900 hours are relegated to the « old » part-time category. The new part-time « courtesy clerk » can work a maximum of 12 hours per week and receives the remaining hours in the store, after full-time, « old part-time » and « new hires » receive their hours. The start rate for the courtesy clerk is minimum wage and the maximum is $8.50 per hour after 36 months. Hence, the part-time employees are subject to lower-wage tiers at the same time as full-time jobs are being eliminated.

These considerable concessions led to extensive disagreement between the union executive and the membership, especially the part-timers. By the end of the strike the company had made three contract offers - all three had been endorsed by the Executive. Two tentative agreements were rejected by the part-time unit, and the third contract offer was only agreed to under difficult circumstances. A particularly controversial event concerned the legality of a ratification vote to accept the second tentative contract offer. The vote was split between the full-time and part-time locals, with the full-timers accepting the agreement and the part-timers rejecting it. The local executive endorsed the offer and wanted the tentative contract ratified. Many of the rank and file disagreed with the position of the executive because they did not like the agreement and furthermore they believed that the local constitution required a majority vote from both the full-time and part-time members. The membership also complained of insecure balloting (double-voting) at ratification meetings. For these reasons, members argued that the union should not have negotiated a memorandum of settlement. A group of disgruntled workers took the union to the Ontario Labour Board under a complaint of unfair representation where it was decided, without a formal hearing, that to achieve ratification a new vote would be taken requiring a majority from all three locals, as had been the practice at the local for the past 25 years. This conflict between the union leaders and the membership reflected more than a disagreement over voting procedure. From the viewpoint of the membership what really was at issue was the terms of the tentative agreement which they believed « sold out » the membership, particularly the part-time employees.

Following the events at the Labour Board, a third tentative agreement was reached but this offer was accepted only after questionable ratification procedures were used. One retail worker felt that the union had pressured members into accepting the final agreement. Another union member believed the union had purposely divided workers for the ratification vote, which occurred at 28 locations, so that critical discussion of the proposed agreement could not take place. She explains, « they [the union] split us up so much, so that if there were any rabble-rousers or anybody who would question anything, they were so divided that our meetings seemed tame. Nobody asked anything, ... I kept thinking, I don't know if the union is in cahoots. » Although the terms of the new contract were very complex, they were not fully explained by the union leadership. There was a strong perception from the members that the union wanted an end to the strike, despite the concessions.

Following the strike, there was considerable disruption caused by reorganization and displacement of staff. The company violated 26 articles of the collective agreement and at least 1500 grievances were filed, of which many concerned seniority rights.

In the period following the strike, full-time employees had their weekly hours reduced to 24 from 37, causing considerable resentment toward the company and generating over 500 grievances. Other grievances filed pertained to lay-offs. The company was so determined to reduce labour costs that it simply ignored collective agreement provisions. Although full-time workers had been assured a job guarantee, lay-offs occurred anyway. In fact, A&P eliminated female predominant full-time job classes in the service departments where women predominate. It is important to stress that these job classifications were eliminated across the entire province. The company assumed full-time workers would voluntarily accept the buy-out offer. However, only 500 employees opted for the pay-out within the first month of its being offered, with the result that Head Office terminated all full-time meat wrapper, cashier and deli attendant positions. Therefore, under seniority provisions in the collective agreement, cashiers, deli attendants and meat wrappers could not move to another store because they « had no one to bump. » Virtually, all employees within their job classification were eliminated, thus removing the job guarantee. The actions of the company after the labour dispute illustrate the consequences of weak union leadership during the strike. Management felt that they could systematically violate the terms of the negotiated collective agreement without risking further labour disruption.

The precipitous actions of the company had major implications for women retail workers. As a result of A&P's actions on full-time jobs, essentially the only full-time positions remaining in the store are departmental managers, and most are occupied by men. At one store, full-time employees were reduced from a total of 22 prior to the strike to 9 full-time following the strike. The downsizing of full-time jobs illustrates the company's intention to retain only a minimal core full-time workforce. These few full-time workers remain only because the company requires their skills to manage departments and to ensure the profit-margin is achieved. As shown above, this category of worker is overwhelmingly male, and thus represents another way in which women are being excluded from full-time positions in the restructuring process.

The UFCW got us a $1.75 per hr.
roll back on our wages,& other concessions. The big
one I think was that low and behold CCWIPP was born.
Nobody was asking for a different pension plan but
after the strike their it was. The pension plan has
never been the same since, it is on it's knees with
the union running it.

One thing I can tell you is that Wynn seemed to be a big fan of Evans and let his Canadian lieutenant run his fiefdom without any interference.

The concession bargaining continues throughout the 1990's with the employers upping their contributions to CCWIPP as hundreds of millions of dollars pour into Ron Kelly's high risk enterprises, including the hotel management firm he apparently had a hand in starting and some fly-by-night businesses in California.