Answering Questions: why haven't we filed a complaint with the labour board?

Since the strike began on May 7, with massively aggressive misconduct from AUPE right from the start, we who have no direct connection with the labour dispute have been forced to put up with crap that would never have been acceptable if these actions were not protected by the surprisingly loose definition of "labour dispute."

As time went on, we'd get more and more people saying, "why haven't you..." and throw out some suggested course of action.  Which, on the one hand is appreciated, but on the other is frustrating, because most of the time, we've already thought of them, tried and failed.

One of these is, why haven't we filed a complaint with the labour board?

Now, the Artspace and SAIL boards technically have that option, but in reality, don't, for reasons that cannot be discussed here.

The surprise was learning that individuals unrelated to a labour dispute can also file complaints.  Why didn't anyone mention that months ago?

Well, it turns out to be a moot point.

Quite a number of people have tried to, it turns out.  I will try and amalgamate some of the outcomes.

Among the problems encountered:

People who phoned labour relations and asked about filing a complaint were given contradictory responses.  Some were basically told they couldn't, because they weren't part of the labour dispute.  Others were told they could, but were given very different information about how to do so.  The police had told us that someone they spoke at labour relations to was actually willing to help people do the paperwork, but when labour relations was called and asked about that, people were told that no, they could not do that, because they were supposed to be impartial and if they helped people with the paperwork, that would mean they were no longer impartial.

Basically, people who called labour relations about filing a complaint got the run around.  In general, the people answering the phones essentially ran interference to make it as difficult and prohibitive as possible, and to discourage people from filing complaints.

So much for "impartial."

The paperwork - not forms, exactly, but more like a guide - is available online.  To say filling out this paperwork is prohibitive would be an understatement.  It would be extremely difficult and confusing for most people to fill out and gather the required information; the process even allows for including things like photos or electronic files with the complaint, which is good.  Many Artspace members who want to file complaints, however, would find it much more difficult to assemble the required information, fill out the forms, then submit them.  For some, it is physically impossible.  For others, it would be incredibly draining, both physically and mentally, to do so.  This is something that would be challenging enough for the able-bodied and in good health.  Anyone who isn't, is essentially shut out.

The system is incredibly able-ist.

The alternative is to hire a lawyer, which pretty much no-one can afford.  Certainly not anyone on AISH (people on AISH do not qualify for Legal Aid; they make too much money) or retirement incomes.  The typical cost I've heard for a decent lawyer is in the $500 an hour range, and that doesn't even count how much it would cost to have a lawyer actually go before the labour board after the complaint is filed.  Numbers I'm hearing quickly pass tens of thousands of dollars by the time the whole thing is done.  This is a community of mostly low-income people, and even those with higher incomes just can't afford it.

Of course, for AUPE, that kind of expenditure doesn't even make them blink.  They've got all those union dues paying for everything.  It's not like anything is coming out of anyone's pocket.

As for those who HAVE consulted lawyers, guess what?

They've basically been told it's not worth filing, because they will lose.

That's right.  Lawyers themselves are telling potential clients not to bother taking on the union before the labour board, because the board will rule in favour of the union.  It's one of those things were, yeah, the board is supposed to be impartial, but "everyone knows" they really aren't.

Well, that doesn't stop anyone from filing anyhow, without a lawyer.  Right?

Maybe under normal circumstances, but remember, AUPE has deliberately targeted communities of vulnerable and disadvantaged people.  Not just members of Artspace, but every time they take action against a care centre or retirement home, they are targeting people who are generally incapable of defending themselves.

It goes beyond just the mental and physical difficulty of jumping through the hoops required to submit a complaint.

Let's assume that some diligent Artspace member managed to get the paperwork done, evidence assembled, complaint filed and accepted (yeah, there's always the possibility labour relations will reject the complaint) and it finally goes before the labour board.

Then what?

Well, then you have this ordinary person, likely someone with a visible or invisible disability, with no experience in labour relations, having to defend their complaint in front of a board we are repeatedly told is not really as impartial as they claim to be, against AUPE's well funded, highly experienced goons.

Like this guy.



This is AUPE's "counsel" making all those accusations, while other AUPE employees and members play their parts.  Watching the videos, I keep expecting to see them step aside and consult their scripts or something.

This guy is one of the reasons people want to file complaints to the labour board against.  Which means that if they file a complaint based on his harassment, defamation and slander, he would be the one they'd be facing in front of the board.

When this obvious conflict of interested was pointed out to them, the people at labour relations had no problem with it, apparently.

The labour board is supposed to be impartial, but they have been so thoroughly shielded, no one's been able to file a complaint to find out if it's true.

If history is any reflection, we have no reason to believe the labour board truly is impartial.  After all, when the SAIL staff "suspended" the strike on short notice and declared they would show up for work in the morning, on a long weekend, while refusing SAIL's request for the time needed to adjust schedules (and user members themselves objected to having people they no longer trusted back into their private homes and refused them entry), then accepting a full long weekend's pay to NOT come to work, the labour board sided with AUPE and declared it an illegal lock out.

To us, that demonstrated they are severely partial towards the union.  The SAIL staff got paid for that weekend, and user members should have every right to refuse to allow people they now considered a threat to their safety and well being into their homes.

Well, I suppose we'll find out for sure soon enough.  There's still that frivolous "bad faith" complaint AUPE has filed against SAIL coming up.  It's obvious their real motives are to simply bankrupt SAIL by dragging them in front of the labour board with frivolous complaints, knowing SAIL has limited funds to defend themselves, over and over.  After all, despite AUPE's public claims to the contrary, SAIL has been transparent in regards to finances, which means AUPE knows exactly how little money there is available to mount a defense.

How's that for conflict?  Imagine having to defend yourself in a civil court against someone you are forced to give all your personal, financial information to?  It's basically the same thing, yet apparently, there's no issue with this at all in labour relations.

If the labour board were truly impartial, they'd recognise that the complaint is frivolous and throw it out.

But then, if the labour board were truly impartial, they wouldn't have allowed AUPE picketers break labour regulations for so many years to begin with.  You know, that whole "picketing the place of employment, peaceful and with no unlawful actions" thing.

Interestingly, AUPE seems to file these "bad faith" complaints (or just make the accusations) an awful lot.

So why hasn't anyone filed a complaint with the labour board?

Because everyone who's tried has been blocked, diverted or told contradictory information, and even lawyers have bluntly stated that there's no point, because they will lose.

Which means that while, technically, anyone can file a complaint with the labour board, in reality, no one can file a complaint with the labour board.