Vale Inco spokesman Steve Ball says he is not surprised United Steelworkers Local 6500 voted 88.7 per cent “no” on March 11 to a five year contract that would send employees back to work. “We are disappointed, but not surprised," Ball said.
Striking Steelworkers Local 6500 members voted decisively in favour of rejecting Vale Inco's proposed contract. (Photo by Marg Seregelyi)
Vale Inco spokesman Steve Ball says he is not surprised United Steelworkers Local 6500 voted 88.7 per cent “no” on March 11 to a five year contract that would send employees back to work.
“We are disappointed, but not surprised," Ball said. "The USW leadership encouraged their members to vote no and prolong a strike that has gone on for far too long."
People have speculated if the percentage was less, perhaps the two sides would have had to continue talking to reach some sort of an agreement.
“For us, a 'no' is a no,” Ball said.
The vote was brought on by the Steelworkers and caught the company by surprise.
However, Vale still has customers to supply and people who want to work. Vale wants to ramp up production at the Coleman and Creighton Mine this year. Just how they will do this is still being discussed.
“We are looking to engage the services of one or more contractors and asking them to source the labour. We are not hiring people directly.”
Asked about security issues around bringing people in, Ball said the company already has ample security in the city and will take appropriate measures to beef it up if needed.
It is all about numbers now, said John Fera, president of United Steelworkers Local 6500. Before, it was more about mining the mineral and human resources.
Now, “it is hard to hold hands with these guys,” said Fera.
“I think they feel we are just a tough group of guys just going out to bully everybody,” he said.
Either way, the two appear to be at a stalemate.
“I went there (to Toronto) expecting nothing and was disappointed when we got nothing,” said Fera.
In a press release from Vale Inco, company officials spoke with union representatives about fewer hourly employees needed going into the future.
“It is the hope of the company that any layoffs resulting from the restructuring will be minimized through continuing retirements and offered special retirement bonuses and incentives,” the release stated.
As such the union wants guaranteed job security with an incentive plan, or layoff package in place for workers who leave early in addition to maintaining bonuses and pension benefits.
The last set of talks provided:
-Wage increases in years two, three, four and five, amounting to 80-cents per hour over the agreement term,
-A roll-in-cost of living allowance of 28 cents an hour to existing wages upon ratification,
-An increase of $150 to pre-65 defined benefit pension entitlement for existing employees to $3,450 a month or $41,000 a year effective June 2010.
A $1 increase in the basic defined benefit pension entitlement effective June 1, 2010.
The defined contribution pension is as it was in 2009, however, a new long-term disability plan that pays the same amount as the defined benefit plan LTD would be instituted. Contributions will be paid while employees are on WSIB, sickness, accident and approved leave of absence for 52 weeks.
The bonus trigger has come down from $5.00 to $3.50 with the cap removed. Originally, it sat at $2.25.
Production $1,000 bonus after three, six and nine months if production is at 90 per cent, 95 per cent and 100 per cent respectively.
Post retirement healthcare benefits for employees covered by the new DCP pension plan on the same basis as the DBP plan retirees.
Employees in the new DCP pension will have company pension contributions continue while employees are away from work and in receipt of WSIB benefits or Sickness and Accident benefits, or on an approved leave for up to 52 weeks.
An extension of the previously offered retirement incentives to Sept. 30, 2010.
Provide more time and tools for employees moving from one job to another.
Strategies to streamline the dispute resolution with a two-stage process that reduces the administrative work while maintaining a working relationship USW redesign.
Vale Inco will not accept a third party to decide fundamental business changes as suggested by the USW.
As for the businesses that rely on the working relationship with Vale Inco Sudbury operations, Fera can only say that these drowning businesses were going under before the strike took place because they were not global players.
“Vale Inco business practice is that if you are not a big player then you are not in the game at all.”
