You are on page 1of 9

Introduction of Presentation

Group Members:
Susanne Sony Tejbir Kamaljeet

Case: Ledcor, Taseko, the CAW, and CLAC (2004)

Summary of Case
Takeko purchased the shut-down Gibraltar mine in 1990 from Boliden Taseko used to have a collective bargaining agreement with the CAW They were unable to renegotiate a collective agreement In May 2004 Taseko started a joint venture with Ledcor to reopen the mine Ledcor has a collective bargaining agreement with CLAC Issue:
Which union will represent the Gibraltar Mine employees? Does the CAW have bargaining rights that prevent Ledcor to work under a CLAC agreement? Who is the successor to Boliden?

Board does not have authority to decide which union will be responsible for the employees at Gibraltar Mine Hence, they ordered that a vote must be held once the Mine has hired all its employees so that the vote will be a fair representation of the future work force Taseko and Ledcor applied for leave for reconsiderations with the board to challenge the timing of the vote Board decided that previous decision was correct and denied the application for leave of consideration Taseko is succesor to Boliden, in case of a joint venture Taseko and Ledcor would be successors

Summary cont.
Other parties involved:
Community Other unions and employers Laws/Principles: Build-up Principle (no jurisdiction) Successorship

Relationships between Parties

CAW & Taseko:
Through the purchase of the mine from Boliden, Taseko accepted several employment responsibilities for CAW employees They were unable to agree to a collective bargaining agreement Tension arose when Taseko started negotiations with Ledcor

CLAC & Ledcor:

CLAC is Ledcors sole bargaining agent for field employees in BC


They have some difference between as there is a competing claim between the two unions for the representational rights of the employees of the mine. Taseko and Ledcor favoured CLAC as their bargaining agent

Importance of dispute
Everyone would like the mine to re-open, because of the benefits of it: Employment, economic benefits, multiplier effect

For employers:
Project was at stake Ledcor was determined to only work under the CLAC collective agreement Taseko was financially dependent on Ledcor

For unions:
Lay-offs of employees they are representing (job security) Presence of union Community (CAW is a local union) Employees that were care takers of mine during its closure, were laid off to bring in Ledcor CLAC is Ledcors sole bargaining agent

It would set a precedent

Labour board will not make a decision of which union will represent company They sat out clear standards of who can choose and how it will be chosen (employee choice based on representative vote)

Dynamics and Environment

Change in BC Government from NDP to Liberal in 2001 Amendments to the Labour Code in 2002 that resulted in a new framework of labour relations

Copper price Availability of jobs Tasekos financial situation

Community (CAW is a local union)

Impact on socio-cultural values


Conclusion: Why did they end up at arbitration?

Still stand in collective bargaining between CAW and Taseko CLAC being the sole bargaining agent of Ledcor CAW employees being laid off Taseko and Ledcor are successors, so both unions have representational rights