RESTORING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE: MYTH VS FACT

Getting the right to strike back does not just give harvesters a new weapon – it removes any guaranteed mechanism for a minimum price before fishing starts, exposes harvesters to EI loss during a labour dispute, and gives processors an equal right to lock out. Read this information closely to understand potential consequences.

❌ MYTH 1

Myth: “Under strike/lockout, a minimum price must be agreed to before buyers can purchase.”

Fact: This is false. Only under the current FOS system is a minimum price required. Under strike/lockout, buyers can offer whatever price they want to break a strike or harvesters can sell on open receipt.

If agreement is not reached in a strike/lockout scenario, the entire industry will suffer.

❌ MYTH 2

Myth: “If a strike is called, harvesters can keep collecting seasonal EI.”

Fact: Employment Insurance payments will immediately stop if a legal strike is called.

❌ MYTH 3

Myth: “If harvesters strike over one species, companies would still have to buy other species as normal.”

Fact: The right to strike would provide the same benefits to processing companies as it does to harvesters. Processors could refuse to take other species to force an agreement on the one in dispute. Any bargaining leverage gained by fish harvesters would also be gained by ASP companies.

❌ MYTH 4

Myth: “A legal right to strike would allow harvesters to stop other members from fishing and landing product in NL.”

Fact: Even in a legal strike situation, the Union cannot lawfully block its own members from fishing or landing product if they choose to ‘cross the picket line’.

❌ MYTH 5

Myth: “A legal strike is quick and simple to trigger.”

Fact: A legal strike requires legislative procedures be followed including a secret ballot strike vote with majority support from those voting. In practice, an official strike process could take up to 3 months complete, costing valuable time in the fishery.

❌ MYTH 6

Myth: Members of all other Unions have the right to strike.

Fact: Binding arbitration is common in many other complex industries, such as essential workers. These workers cannot legally strike – nor could they simply not go to work during a labour dispute. On the other hand, all fish harvesters under the current system can voluntarily not fish or sell their product to NL harvesters – even without the legal right to strike.

❌ MYTH 7

Myth: “Without strike rights, harvesters are powerless.”

Fact: Under the current framework, prices and conditions of sale are still negotiated through collective bargaining, with unresolved matters decided through a binding process.

There is still room to fight for improvements through legislation, regulation, policy reform, grievances, and public pressure, rather than abandoning binding dispute resolution entirely.

In the current system, fish harvesters can always choose not to fish – the Union cannot be seen as directing a work stoppage, tie up, or otherwise. The Union can still advocate for members and let harvesters know they can choose not to fish if they find the price too low.

🔴 SUMMARY

➡If a legal strike or lockout stops work, EI benefits will be cut off.
➡Strike/lockout rights go both ways: processors gain equal power to lock out.
➡Strike action is not guaranteed to be limited to one species; other fisheries could be locked out or disrupted.
➡Processors can use lockouts as leverage in any dispute.
➡The strike process is not immediate; conciliation and voting steps mean weeks or months of procedural delays.
➡Losing a binding price setting mechanism risks chaos: delayed openings, lost fisheries, poor quality product, and long-term market damage.
➡A legal strike does not give the Union the right to block members from fishing or landing product in Newfoundland and Labrador.