Unifor 707A Collective Agreement Suncor

The four-year collective agreement applies to Unifor members working in this sector across Canada. These include higher wages, severance pay and a new framework for combating domestic violence. Suncor was selected by Unifor as the chosen employer to define the model that will be put in place for the remaining employers in the energy sector. The union`s July 2012 political complaint stated that the new policy with the collective agreement, common law, values and principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Alberta Human Resources Protection Act and the Alberta Human Rights Act. Suncor found that while the collective agreement did not specifically authorize this type of random testing, the new policy was only one further step in a series of policy changes that the company had introduced over the years to enhance inherently hazardous workplace safety in the oil sands, and that this new policy was a reasonable exercise of management rights. Given that our jurisdiction derives from the collective agreement and extends only to the employer and members of the collective agreement unit and that the impact on data protection rights will be felt by this bargaining unit as a result of our decision and that there will be only one commitment for them, it makes sense for this board to analyze the costs and benefits of this bargaining unit and not its effects on two-thirds of the bargaining units. Workers. which are also present at Oil Sands operations. The following residents will now ratify the agreements in the various locations that will determine the model: “Our energy members have come together and used their collective power to make significant gains,” said Jerry Dias, Unifor National President. Energy workers are an important part of the Canadian economy.┬áThe majority shuffled two issues and went too far in rejecting Suncor`s policy argument. The first issue is the Tribunal`s jurisdiction to rule only on issues arising from the collective agreement. The second question is what evidence is relevant to whether there is a general substance abuse problem in the workplace. These two questions are different.

Just because the court was not competent to impose or approve drug and alcohol testing of non-unionized employees, this does not mean that Suncors` overall experience with substance abuse in its Fort McMurray operations did not influence the issue in court. As the review of the judiciary rightly pointed out, “it is true that the arbitration decision only involves the members of the bargaining unit, it is not true that the House could only consider elements directly related to this bargaining unit”: para. 78. It was reasonable for the court to conclude that Suncor`s desire to extend drug and alcohol testing to contract staff should not affect the court`s portrayal of the privacy of trade unionists against safety on the job site. But the majority went further, unreasonably concluding that these “judicial” considerations required the court to be blinded by relevant logical evidence. TORONTO – Representatives of Unifor`s energy unions have ratified the interim agreement, which sets the model for 8,500 members of the National Energy Program. . In summary, the Court considers that the use of the term “workplace” and not the term “bargaining unit” is sound throughout Irving`s decision and arbitration.