In the case of the complaint filed by the UFCW 1119 v. Airtex Manufacturing Partnership [1991] Alta.L.R.B.R 783., there are few important issues at play and that need expansion. One is the fact that the employer issued a lockout notice to the workers at their plant on December 02, 1993, and all of the issues surrounding what happened next. The case raises a lot of questions and I will try to expand on my answers to those questions.
One of the questions asked in this assignment was whether a strike or lockout ends a collective agreement. A strike or lockout cannot legally take place until a collective agreement has expired. While negotiations are taking place, there is a bridging provision that extends the collective agreement for a period of time. So essentially, after a collective agreement expires, it is still in effect as long as both sides are negotiating. A strike or lockout ends that collective agreement bridge. According to the Alberta Labour Relations Board, “the bridging provisions of Section 130 that extended the collective agreement during negotiations terminate.”
“Employers may choose to lockout their employees for a short period of time as a way to end the bridging provisions of Section 130 and thereby apply additional pressure on the union to settle the dispute. Although commonly called a “24-hour lockout”, there is no minimum duration required for a lockout and, in Ironworkers 850 v. Western Archrib [1998] Alta.L.R.B.R. 90, the Board ruled the employer had entered a state of lockout without any interruption in work.”
The next question asks whether an employer can unilaterally impose terms and conditions of employment once a lockout action ends a collective agreement. The answer to the question asked is yes. Once the strike or lockout commences, the employer has the ability to unilaterally impose terms and conditions of employment.
”In effect, the