The use of scab labour by the Iqaluit Housing Authority is yet more proof that robust anti-scab legislation can’t come soon enough. Legislation that puts workers first would prevent employers from using scabs instead of working to resolve labour disputes in good faith.  

 

“Workers in Iqaluit are fighting for decent wages for their families in the face of skyrocketing northern prices,” said PSAC National President Chris Aylward. “The employer’s egregious decision to lock out workers and then bring in scabs to do their work cannot go unchallenged.”

 

The use of scabs during a strike results in longer strikes and more difficult strikes – we know this from evidence around the world. In small communities like Iqaluit, it pits neighbour against neighbour, dividing communities and families.  

 

“The Iqaluit Housing Authority should halt the use of scabs and come back to the bargaining table with a real mandate to negotiate better working conditions for the people who provide vital services to Iqaluit residents,“ said Nunavut Employees Union President Jason Rochon. “Instead, they are proposing concessions that would lead to even more precarious work while paying scabs higher wages to do our work.” 

 

PSAC has called on this federal government to introduce anti-scab provisions to the Canada Labour Code as soon as possible. “We have been pleased to hear the Minister share our view that these changes are needed quickly,” said Aylward. “I have reached out to him today to discuss this particular situation.”

 

 

ᐊᑐᕐᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑭᖑᕕᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ ᐃᒃᓗᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᔾᔪᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᐳᖅ ᓴᕿᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑭᖑᕕᕐᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᓴᕿᑕᐅᓴᓕᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔾᔨᓗᓂ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᐅᔪᑦ ᑭᖑᕕᕐᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᐃᓕᒐᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᔨᖃᑎᖃᕋᓱᖓᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᖏᓕᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᕿᒃᓯᒪᓇᓱᖓᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. 

 

“ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᑭᓕᕐᓱᕐᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᒻᒪᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᑦᑐᕆᐊᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᕐᑕᕐᑐᒥ.” ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᕐᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐱᔨᓯᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒋᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕ , ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᖓᔪᖃᖑᔪᖅ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᑯᕆᔅ ᐊᐃᕗᐊᑦ. “ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᕿᒃᓯᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᖁᒃᓴᓇᕐᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓯᕐᑕᐅᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓕᕐᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᕕᕐᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑭᒪᔭᐅᖏᑦᑐᔭᕆᐊᖃᖏᒻᒪᑕ.”

 

ᐊᑐᕐᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑭᒍᕕᕐᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᖃᖓᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓂᖅᓴᖅ ᓄᖃᖓᔾᔪᑕᐅᔭᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᖃᖓᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. − ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᒥ. ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᑭᓐᓂᕐᓴᐅᔪᓂ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ, ᐊᑭᕋᕐᑐᑎᓕᕈᑕᐅᔭᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᖃᑎᒋᓄᑦ, ᐊᕕᒃᑐᕈᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᓄᓪᓗ. 

 

“ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᒃᓗᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᑐᑦ ᑭᖑᕕᕐᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓂᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔨᖃᑕᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᕐᑕᐅᓇᓱᖓᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. “ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᕐᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒋᖏᑦ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖓ ᔭᐃᓴᓐ ᕋᑲᓐ “ᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖓᕐᒪᑕ, ᓴᕿᑦᑎᓇᓱᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᓗᖕᓇᕐᑐᓂᒃ ᓴᕿᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᕈᓐᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᑭᓕᕐᓱᐃᓗᑎᒃ ᑭᖑᕕᕐᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᑐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᒃᓴᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ”.

 

ᐃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐱᔨᓯᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒋᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕ  ᑎᓕᐅᕆᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᕿᑦᑎᒋᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᖑᕕᕐᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓗᐊᓂᓪᓗᓂ ᑲᓇᑕ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᓕᕆᔨᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᕈᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᕿᓚᒻᒥᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ.  “ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᑐᓴᕋᑦᑕ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᓪᓕᕆᐊᓕᑦ ᐱᓴᓕᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ” ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᕐᑐᖅ ᐊᐃᕗᑦ “ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒃᕕᒋᓯᒪᔭᕋ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᐅᔪᖅ. “