Uh-oh, looks like Kindrat wasn’t too happy about that. She replied:
The discussion that we are having over email and on conference calls to look at the potential impact of Bill 28 are very different discussions than how I would have suggested you actually verbally present the current reality to the union at the bargaining table.
I would definitely have preferred to have had some input on that opening statement and how you would have specifically presented these issues at the table.
In my brief conversation with [the Employer’s Director of Human Resources] the other day, I did make a comment about not actually referencing Bill 28 to the union, but I did not realize that your bargaining was actually happening in the next day or two, so I did not push the issue further or provide more clarity. I did reference that at other bargainging tables we had started with a reduced mandate of something like 0%, 0%, and 0.75% to talk about the financial challenges.
At the other tables that the PHLRS has been doing we have been speaking about the “provincial financial challenges” and the “available funded mandate” – with no actual reference to Bill 28 at the bargaining table so that we would avoid this type of response.
Your opening statement is quite likely an unfair labour practice.
I am going to give some thought to possible next steps on this one to try and get this back on track in the right vein of messaging.
Uh, what? The CEO replied:
I can understand your perspective, Teri, although seemed disingenuous not to acknowledge that this Bill is driving negotiations and the ceiling for wages increases.
Now, in the end, this all gets worked out when the government later confirms that in fact the PSSA does not apply, and so in June of 2018, the parties reached an agreement with wage increases better than the PSSA constraints.