After months of not engaging meaningfully in bargaining with LCBO workers, LCBO management brought a proposal to the table just before our strike deadline that was filled with attacks on our working conditions, wages that don’t come close to meeting inflation, and attempts to remove barriers to privatization in our contract.You told us that the things that were most important to you in this round of bargaining were:
- Fighting back against the privatization of alcohol sales and warehouses in order to protect our jobs and the public services that LCBO revenues fund
- Fighting for better working conditions and job security for our members, 70% of whom are casual, including more permanent FT and PT jobs, better scheduling, and access to benefits.
We have stood strong on these demands – your demands. Because if we let Doug Ford continue with his plan to privatize alcohol sales to enrich his billionaire grocery and convenience chain CEO buddies, not only will our jobs be at stake, but so will our public services like health care, education and infrastructure. That’s what we’re fighting for.What the employer brought to the table didn’t even come close.
Click here for a PDF of the employer’s most recent proposal for reference.Here is our analysis of the items in their proposal:
1. The employer proposed that: “All other proposals not included in this package (C1) or already signed off as agreed to issues are to be considered withdrawn by both parties”
Our analysis: The workers gave direction to the bargaining team through the demand set process on priority items they wanted discussed in negotiations. We did a lot of work at the bargaining table and came to an agreement on several items with the employer. This employer proposal, which came just before the strike deadline, would erase all of that work throughout the course of bargaining. Withdrawing previously agreed-to items at the last moment shows that the employer and government are not serious about bargaining.
2. The employer’s wage proposals
The wages proposed by the employer do not meet the mark. In the last three years, LCBO workers have lost over 3.5% to inflation and even with the Bank of Canada’s optimistic forecasts, it would still leave us behind in wages, taking inflation into account.
3. The employer’s proposal for special wage adjustments
Although the employer proposal gets the wages for these positions closer to what the market is offering, there are conditions for certification for those classifications.
4. The employer’s demand for alternate work scheduling (AWS) – Logistics
This was an employer demand, not a member demand. This will create significant uncertainty at their discretion in the shift scheduling with 14 days’ notice. It will make Saturdays and for some classifications Sundays as regular workdays, taking away work life balance, and creating significant issues with childcare and eldercare.Further, the workers will not have the ability to opt out of the AWS.
4A. Operations Employees (Warehouse Workers, Forepersons, Warehouse Clerks)
The employer proposes introducing 4-day 10-hour shifts with .5 hour lunch increasing the regular working hours to 38, no set scheduling rotation proposed, just for purposes of bargaining. The employer would have the ability to assign workers to a team and schedule and the employees would only have the ability to request changes in assignment once every 6 months for the following 6 month period.
4B. Control Employees (Senior Control Console Operators, Control Console Operators)
The employer wants to introduce a 4-day 12-hour shifts with two .5 hour lunches increasing the regular working hours to 44 from 37.5, no set scheduling rotation proposed, just for purposes of bargaining. The employer would have the ability to assign workers to a team and schedule and the employees would only have the ability to request changes in assignment once every 6 months for the following 6-month period.
4C. VAX Systems Operators
The employer wants to introduce a 4-day 12-hour shifts with .5 hour lunch, increasing the regular working hours to 38.5, no set scheduling rotation proposed, just for purposes of bargaining. The employer would have the ability to assign workers to a team and schedule and the employees would only have the ability to request changes in assignment once every 6 months for the following 6-month period.
4D. Maintenance Employees (Servicepersons, Maintenance Mechanics, Maintenance Electricians, Electronic Technicians, Building Maintenance Mechanics, WW3s employed as Janitors)
The employer wants to introduce an uneven rotational work week. Workers will be working 8 days per pay-period in one month and 6 days per pay-period. In other words, all employees impacted by this new schedule will not have a steady income form one month to the next. The employers’ averaging of hours over 2 months doesn’t work. The employer would have the ability to assign workers to a team and schedule and the employees would only have the ability to request changes in assignment once every 6 months for the following 6-month period.
5. The employer proposed that the LCBO and OPSEU agree to renew several Letters of Agreement.
The employer’s proposal to renew the letters without any changes is inadequate and doesn’t meet the needs of LCBO workers facing privatization. The letters were created in an environment where the government had not announced privatization of alcohol sales. Your bargaining team has tabled extensive proposals to enhance those letters to address convenience and keep the jobs in the LCBO.
6. The employer wants both parties to agree to the following collective agreement amendments:
Letter of Agreement re: Enhanced Severance – Privatization – Permanent Employees:
Although the employer addressed part of our demand, it still falls short on the amounts and maximums, which haven’t been updated since the 1990s.
Deletion of the Letter of Agreement re: Grocery Program Channel Stores:
By deleting this letter, the employer is removing their commitment to keeping the grocery store alcohol sales at their current rates, thus increasing the profits of billionaires and taking public money away from Ontarians.
Letter of Agreement re: Post and Fill
The employer’s proposal of a 5% increase in permanent full-time (PFT) doesn’t address the systemic casualization of the workforce at LCBO. The employer needs to show a real commitment to their workers and address the Union’s proposals. The bargaining team had put forward a number PFT gains in each Logistics Facility and Head Office.
New – Letter of Agreement re: Case Volume at LCBO Retail Service Centres
The increase of volume for Durham Warehouse (RSC) proposed by the employer, while welcome, is not meaningful and will not ensure that jobs won’t be lost due to the mass outsourcing of warehousing and distribution to 3rd party companies like Trillium.
Casual Benefit Plan
The employer’s proposal to reduce the number of hours to qualify for benefits is a move in the right direction, however the 5-year waiting period is draconian and unheard of in any industry.
Article 6 – Job Security
The employer wants to define geographic areas for retail as the district where a store is located for the purposes of layoff, while removing the protection that they cannot change them for the length of the collective agreement. This would give the employer the ability to change the district boundaries in a way that allows the employer to force employees to relocate further away, and could have negative effects on the job security of members.
Article 7 – Hours of Work and Overtime
For retail, the employer wants to remove the designated shifts that have been negotiated, and to have the ability to schedule workers’ start and end times at different times, even from week-to-week. This would create great uncertainty for workers’ schedules, and could interfere with child care or elder care plans, and other commitments that workers have.
