CCRL, Unifor continue court battle over what those on picket lines can do at refinery
The union representing lockedout refinery workers will have to follow specified rules while impeding traffic moving into and out of Co-op Refinery Complex (CRC) property.
The two sides argued the matter on Monday before Regina Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Janet Mcmurtry. The judge had issued an interim order last week in which members of Unifor Local 594 were restrained from “impeding, obstructing or interfering with the ingress or egress to or from the applicant’s property, except for the purpose of conveying information and/or soliciting support to a maximum of five minutes.”
Mcmurtry’s subsequent order, issued on Tuesday, places continued restrictions on Unifor but added “the restriction of access to or exit from the said premises, shall only last as long as necessary to provide information, to a maximum of 10 minutes, or until the recipient of the information indicates a desire to proceed, whichever comes first.”
The judge decided against making an order requested by Consumers’ Co-operative Refineries Limited (CCRL) pertaining to claims of intimidation, determining “it has occurred on both sides.”
“Moreover, the parties are two weeks into this labour dispute, and I am confident based on the evidence before me that the parties are exerting more control over the conduct of their members, employees and/or contractors,” Mcmurtry wrote in her 32-page decision.
“In any event, and as stated in the interim order, the police are responsible for enforcing breaches of the criminal law.”
On Dec. 3, shortly after receiving strike notice from Unifor, CCRL served a 48-hour lockout notice on the union. The lockout began on Dec. 5, and union members have been picketing CCRL facilities while CCRL has made efforts to continue operating by using non-unionized employees, replacement workers and contractors.
Mcmurtry noted union members are entitled, during a lawful lockout, to communicate with the public about the labour dispute. But during Monday’s hearing, each side claimed the other had engaged in improper practices, intimidation tactics and even assault.
In its request for the injunction, CCRL sought to restrict any delay to traffic flow. The union argued an injunction was not warranted but, if the judge found it was, requested more time for communicating its message to those seeking to enter or leave the facilities.
Mcmurtry determined “individuals aligned with CCRL and Unifor have attempted to intimidate those on the other side,” and that Unifor “has engaged in activity designed to impede and/or block the traffic flow in and out of CCRL premises” — activity running “beyond what is permitted.”
The judge agreed with CCRL that the first 1-1/2 weeks of picketing “was unlawful as the apparent purpose of some of the picketing was not to disseminate information to the public, or to solicit support of the public, but to intimidate replacement workers and others from entering CCRL facilities.”
“However,” she added. “I am also satisfied, based on the evidence before me, that Unifor has taken control of the unlawful behaviour, except with regard to replacement workers.”
Mcmurtry said her Dec. 24 decision was intended to strike a balance between Unifor’s right to picket and CCRL’S right to protect its premises, while bearing in mind long delays could cause rising tensions and therefore “unexpected incidents” to occur.
Since the judge’s interim decision last week, CCRL applied to the court, asking it to find the union in contempt of that order. The CCRL alleged Unifor members impeded a number of trucks and buses between Dec. 18 and 22. In a decision Friday, the judge dismissed the application, given the interim order in question is no longer in effect.