Question

Case Incident
Unfriendly Negotiations at Friendly Tires
The United Steelworkers of America (Canada) was certified in 2013 as the bargaining
agent for service and clerical employees of Friendly Tire Stores at two Hamilton, Ontario
locations. Since that time, the union and the employer were able to negotiate two
collective agreements (an agreement covering November 2013–December 2014 and
the current four-year contract, which expires on December 31, 2018). In late 2018, USW
Local 2419 served notice to bargain with the management of Friendly Tires. Business at
the two tire outlets had been good, but management was worried about planned
commercial developments that would introduce one Canadian Tire outlet and a new
Wal-Mart full-service retail store near its outlets over the next two years.
Two initial meetings were held between union and management representatives in late
November and early December. While progress was made on several matters including
vacation scheduling, health and safety inspections, and enhanced dental plan coverage,
the parties were deadlocked on hourly pay rates, COLA adjustments, and uniform
allowances.
At the December 10 bargaining session Omar Said, human resources manager at
Friendly Tires management, advised the union that the company was not able to make
any further concessions and any agreement had to be based upon the employer’s most
recent proposals on the outstanding issues including hourly pay rates, COLA, and
uniform allowance. The union indicated that it was not willing to agree to the employer’s
terms and doubted if there was any point to further talks. The union also stated that in
view of the employer’s position it would be conducting a strike vote. The employer sent
a letter to the union executive setting out the terms of its final proposals as outlined in
the December 10 meeting. In that correspondence, Mr. Said offered to meet with the
union to conduct further talks on the unresolved matters. The union held a meeting with
its members from both stores on December 18to update them on negotiations. The
union advised employees that talks had broken off following last week’s meeting and
provided them with a summary of the union and employer positions on unresolved
issues. The union indicated that the employer’s final offer included removal of the $20
per month uniform allowance to all garage/service job classifications. USW Local 2419
president Marion Stackhouse also noted the employer cost of the living proposal of 2.0
percent over the life of the next agreement was unacceptable. She went on to say that
any pay rate increases, according to the employer, would only be considered in the
second and subsequent years of a renewed agreement; and would likely not exceed
more than $1 per hour in any of the 12 job classifications in the bargaining unit. The
letter concluded by telling the members that the union executive would be seeking a

strike vote and approval from the regional business agent for a possible strike against
the company.
On December 21, the employer-provided all Friendly Tire employees a memo that set
out the employer’s current position in contract negotiations. The memo included the
following statement:

“We want all of our staff to know what the employer has proposed to your union on the remaining
bargaining issues. This is a summary of our offer to settle the contract, which was discussed with the
union on December 10 th . You can also obtain additional information about this offer from the union.
Management is asking for deletion of the current uniform allowance, a realistic cost of living
adjustment given recent COLA trends for municipalities in this area and limited pay classification
raises that would be “back-loaded” in the term of the new collective agreement. Friendly Tires is
facing increased market competition from recognized competitors in the next few years. We do value
your contributions and efforts of our customers. Friendly Tires does wish to reward your efforts and
reflects this in some improvements in the proposed collective agreement. However, management is
being prudent in its financial forecasts to avoid any future negative consequences.”
The letter closed by telling employees that company management remained willing to
re-start talks with the Local 2149 negotiating team at any time.
After the memo was issued, Ms. Stackhouse and members of the local executive
committee received a steady series of questions from their members. Employees asked
why the memo had come from the employer when the union had not provided a written
follow-up on the December 18 special union meeting. There were also questions about
the wage increase and uniform policy. On December 27, the union sent a letter to the
employer noting the following:

“ . . . . and in the opinion of the union executive the December 21st memo to our members is seen
as an attempt to directly negotiate terms and conditions of work with Friendly Tire employees and
not with the USW Local 2149 bargaining team. Based on feedback received by the union local
executive from our members since receipt of Mr. Said’s memo it is our sincere belief that the
Friendly Tire’s management has engaged in an unfair labour practice that has caused Local 2149

members to feel intimidated and threatened. We are in consultation with our business agent and
union legal counsel concerning filing a complaint with the Labour Relations Board. . . . ..”
Upon receiving an e-mail with this attached letter from Ms. Stackhouse, Mr. Said
contacted members of the company’s management group to gather at a hastily called
meeting for the next morning to discuss this matter.
Questions
1. In your opinion, is the management team for Friendly Tires only engaged in
“hardball tactics” as discussed in this chapter? Use an example to support your
viewpoint.
2. In reviewing the excerpt from the December21 management memo to union
members, do you interpret the content of the correspondence as likely to
cause employees to feel intimidated or threatened? Explain why or why not.
Do you believe an unfair labour practice complaint by the union would be
upheld before the Labour Relations Board? Share your views with other
members in the class.

Answer 1

1. Hardball tactics is followed by people who firmly believe that there has to be loser and a winner in business deal or business negotiations i.e. that is no common agreement or compromises involved in a deal or negotiation.

During the negotiation process, in two meetings held between the Union and management, some of the matter such as vacation scheduling, health and safety inspections, and enhanced dental plan coverage were resolved while the issues regarding hourly pay rates, COLA adjustments, and uniform allowances were not sorted out.

The management and the union know that there is going to be an expansion and there is a possibility that the company could get more people and do well in many disciplines. The management took advantage of this situation and is willing to take the risk of non-cooperation or mass layoffs or mass removal of workers from the company. The company is willing to take the risk as there shall be easy low wage recruitment in near future and also the workers do not have the intention to quit. In the end, the workers would return to normal self and resume their work, as usual.

2. The primary motto is to make the employees feel intimidated. The memo states that the union workers have suffered an intimidation or a threat. By stating this, the memo has clearly mentioned that the workers have a genuine case of grievance.

The company management could have easily considered the most minimal affordable raise towards the uniform and the COLA adjustments but no progress have been made. Also, the union had not sent a formal reply to the management in written as a follow up in response to December 18 Union meeting. Yet, there was a memo from the employer on 21. From these, it can be elucidated that the management shall be seen as a unit that did not pay attention to the welfare of the employees. Hence, it can be confirmed that the management is practicing unfair labour treatment and the same shall be easily upheld before the Labour Relations Board.