CEP255G

Edmonton – Community support for 20 CEP Local 255-G members who have been put out of work by Ed-Web printers continues to grow. The members were fired on Alberta’s “family day”, a statutory holiday when most of the members were at home enjoying time with their families.  To add insult to injury, the company shifted the CEP work to a non-union shop nearby.  The Alberta Federation of Labour has asked the community to boycott the company.

Unions cry foul over “Family Day Massacre” at Ed-Web printers

Thursday, 23 February 2006 17:00

EDMONTON-Alberta unions are up in arms after learning about an “unethical and probably illegal” scheme to bust the union at a prominent Edmonton printing company.

“It’s bad enough that they’ve fired all the employees and handed their jobs to non-union workers,” says Gil McGowan, president of Alberta’s largest union organization, the Alberta Federation of Labour.

“But to do it on Family Day, when most of the employees were at home enjoying time with their families, is simply reprehensible.”

McGowan says the owners of Ed-Web have miscalculated if they thought they could get away with the firing because of the relatively small number of employees involved.

“This may be a small group of workers, but the basic principles involved are huge,” says McGowan.

“We may not have the best labour laws in the country, but even here in Alberta it is illegal for employers to close down a union shop and open up across the street with a new, non-union work force. That’s exactly what’s happened here - and we simply won’t allow them to get away with it.”

Ed-Web managers informed the union of the firings late in the afternoon on Family Day. Fifteen press room workers and five bindery workers - all members of the Communication, Energy, Paperworkers Workers union Local 255-G - received formal pink slips the next day.

“This was a huge shock to all of us,” says local union president Ray Wade. “These were decent, family-sustaining jobs. The union has worked with the company to make this a profitable operation for more than 30 years. This clearly isn’t about economics - it’s about busting the union.”

Wade says the firings are particularly difficult because several of the affected workers have young families.

“One of our guys was just getting back on his feet after losing his home in the St. Albert condo fire in December. He’s got a wife and a baby. This is just devastating for them,” says Wade.

Ed-Web is part of a larger printing conglomerate that includes Edmonton-based Central Web and Calgary Colour Press in Calgary. Ed-Web is best known for printing the popular Trader publications and the various renters’ guides. The work done by union members at Ed-Web has now been transferred to a new press at the non-union Central Web plant.

McGowan says the Ed-Web case is significant because it strikes at the heart of the right that workers have to join union and bargain collectively.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that Canadians have a constitutional right to belong to unions. But that’s an empty right if employers can simply fire union members at will and replace them with non-union workers. That’s why the broader labour movement is taking a big interest in this case - the Ed-Web worker’s fight is our fight.”

Alberta Labour Relations Board

17/09/08 - Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 255-G v. Ed Web Printers, Central Web Offset Ltd. and Central Web Colorpress (a division of Central Web Offset Ltd.), Black Press Ltd.  - Formal - Cite: [2008]Alta.L.R.B.R. 289Sale of Business – Successor Rights – s. 46(1) - The Board concluded a successorship had occurred when the “lifeblood” of an organization was transferred over time to the successor employer in the context of a non-arm’s length transaction.

Ed Web, a unionized print shop, was sold to Central Web Offset Ltd. (“Central Web”) as part of a more complicated series of corporate transactions.  Commencing shortly after the sale, Central Web began appropriating Ed Web’s important “soft assets” and integrating them into Central Web’s own business.  When Ed Web’s business fortunes declined, its “hard assets” became surplus.  Central Web disposed of these hard assets, appropriated the sale proceeds, terminated almost all of the unionized employees, and transferred the remaining “soft assets” – customers, ongoing work, managers and most importantly, the benefit of a long term printing contract – to itself.  Ultimately, Ed Web was closed

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union  of Canada. Local 255G (the “Union”) applied to the Board for a declaration that Central Web was both a successor employer to and a common employer with Ed Web Printers (“Ed Web”).  The Union also sought various other findings including that Central Web breached the Code’s statutory freeze provisions, bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose in a timely fashion a plant closure, refused to hire employees from the closed operations because of their union affiliation and interfered with the Union’s rights to represent their members.

Held:  The Board dismissed the Union’s common employer application.  The application failed on the ground there was no labour relations purpose for making the declaration.  The Board would not exercise its discretion to make a common employer declaration where one of the employers that would be bound by the declaration was truly defunct and out of business.

The Board also dismissed the Union’s statutory freeze application.  Although the closure of the printing plant was an alteration of the terms of employment of the bindery employees during a freeze period, it was a change that was in accordance with the collective agreement and in the reasonable expectations of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board granted the Union’s successorship, bad faith bargaining, refusal to hire and interference with representational rights applications.  Emphasizing the fact the transfer in question was non-arm’s length being between divisions of the same corporate employer, the Board concluded the transfer over time of a significant portion of the unionized division’s soft assets and ultimately its hard assets (or the proceeds from the sale of these hard assets) resulted in the transfer of the “lifeblood” of the unionized operation to Central Web.  Addressing the bargaining in bad faith complaint, the Board held the employer had a duty to make unsolicited disclosure of the decision to close the plant prior to the date the disclosure was ultimately made.  The evidence also supported finding in favour of the union on the refusal to hire complaint and the interference with representational rights complaint.