TWU Local 556 Negotiation Update #15

At the outset of this week’s negotiation session, President Lyn Montgomery provided a response to the Company’s comprehensive proposal passed during the parties’ previous session. That response was provided to you in an email and by video through various channels. In short, President Montgomery explained the Union was not interested in a quick deal, but rather; was intent on negotiating regarding the issues that are important to you, the Members of TWU Local 556. Following delivery of President Montgomery’s response, the Union presented counters on Article 25 – Safety, Health & Security and Article 33 – Commuter Policy. The Company did not provide responses to either of these articles.

The Union, at commencement of the second day of bargaining, presented a counter to Hotel Standards. The Company asked a few questions but provided no response to this proposal either. 

Despite providing no counters to any of the responses passed by the Union this week, the Company expressed disappointment that it would now have to pursue a “different method” in negotiations. In addition, the Company’s original position was that its comprehensive package was not a “take-it-or-leave-it” proposal. However, the Company advised your Committee this week that, because we were unwilling to negotiate within the comprehensive parameters, it would be withdrawing all the Articles within that comprehensive proposal that were initiated by the Company. 

On the third day of bargaining, the Company proposed Article 11 – Reserve and Article 30 – Profit Sharing. Aside from a slight clarification in the Reserve article, these proposals were identical to what the Company proposed as part of its comprehensive. Your Committee has already explained the many reasons why the Company’s Reserve proposal fails to address your needs. Unfortunately, the Company ignored our stated concerns and re-proposed the exact same language. 

Your Negotiating Committee has been clear with the Company since delivery of President Montgomery’s original opening statement in November of last year; it was important to our Members that we take the time needed to focus on several issues not addressed in previous contracts. Unfortunately, the Company ignored your Committee’s repeated pronouncements to this effect. Instead, the Company turned a blind eye and deaf ear to your needs as conveyed by your Committee and continued with its pursuit of a quick deal. In so doing, the Company wasted valuable negotiation time ignoring your Committee’s proposals only to proceed with a rushed negotiation process that we advised, from day one, was unacceptable to our Members.

While the Company expressed disappointment that it would now have to pursue a “different method” of negotiation, we, as your Committee are hopeful that, with the distraction of the Company’s rushed deal behind us, we can engage in meaningful negotiations on the issues important to you. We are dismayed, however, the Company was too focused on its quick-deal path that it was unwilling to engage in productive negotiations up to this point.

We will restate this again — we do not wish for lengthy negotiations, but we will not be pressured to accepting a deal simply for the sake of the Company’s expediency. We want the right deal for our Membership, not a quick one.