The Swiss Chalet Workers: Part 4
The Deal Goes Down
By February 1985, over a year after it began its extraordinary organizing campaign of Swiss Chalet Restaurants across Ontario, the UFCW had come a long way. Extensive hearings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board had just concluded. The OLRB had ruled that the Foodcorp Limited, the company that operated the Swiss Chalet's, had broken the law through its use of undercover operatives to assist CURRE's organizing campaign in 1979. CURRE's merger with HERE was ruled null and void; the result of the CURRE executive board's improper amendment of its constitution, HERE's claim for successor rights at Ontario Swiss Chalet's was dismissed. Although the OLRB refused to void CURRE's bargaining rights out of deference for the labour-management relationship between Foodcorp and CURRE, the decision nonetheless exposed an insidious scheme to steer workers towards the union of the employer's choice.
All that remained was for the OLRB to process the UFCW's second set of applications for certification for the restaurants (applications that came about as a result of the UFCW having re-signed the workers several months after they originally signed membership cards). These would be processed like any other displacement applications. Where the UFCW had 55% of the workers signed up, stood to be automatically certified. At some stores, CURRE-HERE Local 88 (the product of the CURRE-HERE merger) had filed applications for certification also. In these cases, votes would likely be ordered. A hearing date to deal with the applications was set for May 3, 1985.
While the outcome of the certification process was by no means guaranteed, the UFCW would have had reason for optimism. Its second set of applications was a strong signal that support among its members remained strong. Whatever the outcome of the certification process would be, the UFCW was on the verge of establishing itself as a major presence in a large nationwide restaurant chain.
But then something happened. As suddenly as it began, the campaign ended. On April 4, 1985, a deal was made between the UFCW, CURRE and HERE. Judging from what is on the public record and from events which unfolded in its wake, the deal left the UFCW with bargaining rights for 9 restaurants in addition to the 4 for which it had already been certified by the OLRB (this out of a total of 29 for which it originally applied). Most of these were located in smaller Ontario centers and only two in Metropolitan Toronto. The remaining stores would be split up between CURRE and CURRE-HERE. As a part of the deal, the UFCW appears to have withdrawn all of its applications for certification and a dozen or so unfair labour practice complaints as well. That it acquired bargaining rights for 9 stores without certification suggests that it obtained voluntary recognition for these stores from the employer.
Workers at stores where UFCW applications were pending were advised of the deal at hastily called meetings in April 1985. Kevin Corporon, the campaign's coordinator, presided over at least some of these meetings. His message to confused and angry workers was that the International offices of the UFCW and HERE had decided that it was time to settle their dispute. The settlement was in the best interests of both the unions. The deal was done and there was no going back on it.
Apart from its continuing affiliation with HERE, not much had changed at CURRE since. The enterprising Bill Whyte continued on as the union's Business Manager, his brother held a position on the union's executive, the union office continued was situated next door to Whyte's armoured courier business, Whyte's significant other continued to run the health and welfare plan. Some of the "consultant business agents" brought on board at the beginning of the UFCW's campaign, also worked for Whyte's armoured courier service. Many of the workers who had steadfastly supported the UFCW for well over a year were devastated to learn that they were now being handed over, voluntarily, to the union they had fought so hard to be rid of.
So ended what was undoubtedly the largest organizing campaign involving restaurant workers in Canadian labour history. Its end was not determined by the wishes of the workers, but of the wishes of the leaders of two international unions.
What was the deal?
It's not unusual for warring unions to make deals in order to settle their differences. The most commonly advanced reasons for these deals are a mix of brotherhood and cost-consciousness and these may have been considerations in the decision between the two internationals but for the timing of this deal. The battle was already over. The OLRB proceedings were completed. The organizing was done. The money was already been spent. All that remained was for the OLRB to sort out the applications. Concern about resources was unlikely to have been a factor in this decision. The relationship between HERE and UFCW would by now have been strained well past the breaking point and would be again before too long. The two had slugged it out for well over a year. Neither union had raised the issue of raiding formally with the CLC or any other similar labour organization, suggesting that concern about relationships and brotherhood were not high on anyone's agenda. The decision appears to have happened quickly, perhaps unexpectedly.
What motivated the UFCW to make this deal - abruptly ceding a majority of the stores for which it had applied only weeks before the OLRB was to finally process its certification applications? What exactly was the deal and who put it together? The answers to these questions will stay a mystery for the moment but events that occurred shortly after may shed some light - or in the very least, raise even more questions.
Was the company in on it?
The UFCW got bargaining rights for 9 stores out of the deal, but it was never certified at those 9 stores. Instead, it withdrew those applications. This would suggest that the union must have come by its bargaining rights through voluntary recognition, a process that would have involved the approval of the employer. Why would the company, having resisted the campaign as it had, suddenly grant the UFCW voluntary recognition? Whatever the reason, the deal was not a bad one from the employer's point on view. The UFCW came away with a small number of stores and was relegated to a position of powerlessness relative to CURRE-HERE.
Was Region 19 in on it?
The 13 UFCW stores (nine it acquired through the deal plus 4 at which it was already certified) became a part of UFCW Local 175. Local 175 was under the jurisdiction of Cliff Evans' Region 19. This is puzzling, as Frank Benn's Region 18 had carried out the organizing campaign. Regions 18 and 19 were created following the 1979 merger of the Amalgamated Meatcutters and the Retail Clerks Unions in response to concerns from both camps about autonomy and assimilation. Each represented the jurisdiction previously held by the Meatcutters and the Clerks prior to the merger and operated with considerable autonomy under the auspices of its own director. This duality, however, was only an interim measure. When either one of the directors retired, the two regions would be merged and an election would be held for a single Canadian Director. Not long after the UFCW's deal on the Swiss Chalet's was done, Benn retired - part way through his term as Region 18 Director. Bill Hanley, President of Local 175 and loyal Evans lieutenant, was appointed to fill the Region 18 Directorship on an interim basis. Evans would go on to win the election for Canadian Director in 1988. Was Benn's departure linked to the Swiss Chalet deal? Certainly it would have helped clear the way for Evans eventual ascension to the leadership of the Canadian UFCW.
Of all the questions that the UFCW-HERE deal raises, the most important one must be however, with two of North America's largest service industry unions representing their interests, how did the members do out of the bargain? During the spring and summer of 1985, CURRE-HERE commenced negotiations with Cara and its franchisees. An agreement was finally reached in August of that year with a strike deadline looming. That agreement featured, among other things, a two-tier wage scale. In September 1985 UFCW Local 175 signed a substantially similar agreement for its 13 stores containing the same two-tier wage scale. For the restaurant workers, this was their introduction to life in labour's mainstream.
Coming up next: Life in Labour's Mainstream
Sources for this article:
Bitter power struggle surfaces at food workers' union meeting, Toronto Star, January 29, 1987
Canadian Union Movement in the 1980's: Perspectives from Union Leaders, Interview with Cliff Evans, Pradeep Kumar & Dennis Ryan (eds.), Queen's University, 1988
Ontario Labour Relations Board Reports, May, June, July 1985
UFCW Action Magazine, 1983, 1984
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Famz Foods Limited v. Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees, Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union, Local 88, OLRB 0336-84-R, June 12, 1985
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Cabral Foods et al, OLRB 2628-83-R, September 12, 1984, February 18, 1985
Other information from confidential sources with direct knowledge of the events described