Colin Freeze, Toronto, ON (Globe and Mail) – An Ontario Superior Court judge yesterday awarded the Mounties the right to unionize in a landmark decision that may have huge implications for the RCMP, its culture, and government budgets across the country.
Mr. Justice Ian MacDonnell struck down a section of the RCMP Act that precludes unionization, finding the law unconstitutional. He gave the federal government 18 months to prepare for the decision to take effect, given that it could fundamentally alter the power structure of one or Canada’s most important institutions.
The RCMP, whose 22,000 officers work as municipal, provincial and federal police, is often described as the only force in the country that doesn’t have a union. For more than a century, senior police commanders have resisted unionization movements, often arguing that it is imperative that the loyalties of the rank and file not be split.
But “why does the wider jurisdiction of the RCMP, or its status as a unique Canadian institution make the labour relations modes in place for other police forces inappropriate,” Judge MacDonnell asked in his 35-page ruling (downloadable at globeandmail.com).
The Mounted Police Association of Ontario launched the lawsuit.
Under the current labour-relations model for the RCMP, police brass impose a “staff relations” program to give a voice to the rank and file.
But Judge MacDonnell characterized this as unconstitutional as it was “an entity created by management to avoid unionization.”
One Mountie, who grudgingly serves as a divisional representative under the current regime, is overjoyed by the decision.
“Technically today I’m unconstitutional,” said Staff Sergeant Gaetan Delisle, whose failed unionization bids led to a Supreme Court case in his name 10 years ago. Under the status quo, he said, he is powerless. “The president of your union doesn’t report to the commanding officer, does he?” he asked rhetorically.
For decades, RCMP commissioners have said that unwieldy police unions would expose Canada to everything from creeping Bolshevism to politicized police.
Proponents for change, however, have argued that a union would not only lead to more money and benefits, it could also give the institution a much needed shot in the arm in terms of culture change – for example, by better protecting whistleblowers.
Striking is not regarded as an issue, given that Canadian police associations give up the right to do so.
Currently, the interests of RCMP members are represented by what critics regard as a company-controlled quasi-union, the Staff Relations Representative program, which was implemented as a concession 35 years ago.
Judge MacDonnell found the arrangement unconstitutional. “From its conception in 1974, the SRRP was meant to be a mechanism for consultation … not a vehicle for bargaining,” he writes.
“Throughout the 20th century management was unequivocally hostile to the prospect of unionization of the force,” he said. He added that “the SRRP is not an independent association formed or chosen by members of the RCMP” and that its relations with management “cannot reasonably be described as a process of collective bargaining.”
“The RCMP, whose 22,000 officers work as municipal, provincial and federal police, is often described as the only force in the country that doesn’t have a union.”
Not so. The Canadian Forces Military Police is also a recognized federal police force that is not permitted to “unionize”. With over 1,250 full-time members, they form one of the largest police forces in Canada.
I believe both federal police forces should work together in asserting their right to free association.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
3 
4
Growing with every misstep by management. Systems like the VPD have a positive effect on the “union” debate. More people realize that the RCMP have been using the various PD union contracts to get wage and benefit parity.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Allowing “dependent contractors” aka “employees” to bargain collectively for pay and working conditions is neither intrinsically good (as the left would have everyone believe), or bad (as the right would typically insist). How the bargaining unit and its elected officials conduct themselves, and how management and its negotiation and contract administration managers conduct themselves has a lot to do with the results we will all see.
I would like to believe that an “essential service” designation would prevent a police union from withdrawing service during a dispute with management but I think that would be naive. Every union which functions under the rubric of essential service designation knows full well how to shovel sand into the organizational gears. Some do, and some don’t. Why? What accounts for the difference? Let’s face it. The RCMP rank and file already know how to fight the command structure with impunity and they need no collective agreement to shield them if they would vent their spleen at this personality in management or that new policy directive. Many have been doing it successfully for years. Trying to tag them as they do it is likely to be as successful as my white haired mother trying to tag Ali in his prime.
To understand the likely outcome of unionization you need first to understand the prevailing mindset and beliefs of the majority of those who make up the union membership. And from where I stand, things do not look too good. Maybe the potential outcome is best illustrated by a parallel history. In years past, Canada’s postal workers were represented by two different unions. One bargained for the inside workers while the other bargained for the letter carriers (you know, the men and women who come to your door step day after day with your mail, or who load it into your “Super Mail Box” at the end of your street). One union (the inside workers) had a tradition of militancy and a reputation for self centered, ‘who gives a damn’ bitterness. The letter carriers on the other hand had a tradition of service and a reluctance to strike. Why? Simply put the LCUC who trudged through the snow to your doorstep and who would seem to have the worse job, got to see the faces of the customers and understood the gratitude of the senior who appreciated her pension cheque or the kid who hopped up and down with glee over a birthday card in the mail.
And that is why I have few hopes for brighter days. There are clearly some exceptions but on balance, the RCMP I see on duty has replaced a tradition of service from years past with a bureaucratic reluctance to help. When one calls the RCMP frequently one gets a list of reasons why they decline to respond and a suggestion to take your problem elsewhere. So I expect the service standards will sink a little bit, but they are already low so maybe we may not notice much of a decline.
But if government really wanted to address service standards and cost effectiveness and in the process bypass the somewhat marginal concerns over collective bargaining rights there is a way. In BC, where I believe the contract is up for renewal shortly, implement a review commission tasked to look into alternate means of policing. And make it clear that the problems and symptoms the commission of inquiry wishes to address are those most afflicting the general public: service standards, unregulated use of deadly force, lack of accountability, isolated aloof policing mentality, inability to connect with the community…and anything else that needs addressing. In short, plan to take your business to another service provider (including one you may want to set up) and watch how the RCMP rank and file ability to bargain collectively suddenly becomes as irrelevant as a knife in a gun fight.
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
8
Interesting, the last time this came up the arguement that all Mounties were also considered to part of the Canadian Armed Forces was held up and the courts rejected the employee associations arguement. A lot has happend to the RCMP since then.
Its unlikely that the Harper government will appeal this but the proponents of the union have to convince all the rank & file RCMP officers to vote to form a union. Thats not a given. The proponents of unionizing the force are the professional associations representing Mounties in Ontario and Quebec (where the RCMP just carries out federal law enforcement) and B.C. (the largest contract policing province) but not all members in those provinces have joined the voluntary professional associations representing RCMP officers.
Deepthroat, you seem to be pretty knowledgable on this topic, what do you think the actual level of support for a union is among the frontline RCMP?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
5 
0
“loyal service as the main prerequisite to promotion.”
Has not been the main prerequisite for 15 years.
Is that the recorded message you get from your local Police department Alcan? Better move to a non union location.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
4 
3
Cost More for Less, NICE!!!
Forget the Emergency calls…. they won’t just go back to bed … the Recorded message will say NOT AVAILABLE SLEEPING or out on my BREAK… SEE YA!!!
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
3 
4
Keep your hand on your wallet, if they form a union there will be no cut rate service options anymore. Collective bargaining, contracts that cannot be changed by management at a whim, no isolated posts with undermanned status, service standards, safety issues addressed, etc. Bigger tax bill all around.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
2 
4
Allowing members to be properly represented may put an end to the impenetrable CYA mentality that makes long, loyal service as the main prerequisite to promotion.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
3 
3
So funny, in a huge mess and in a heap of trouble because they have miss led the nation in several occurences this is the best they can come up with; more protection for themselves and for the RCMP?…
What about the victims, can someone do what is right for them for a change?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
4 
2
It’s unlikely the higher courts will overturn this decision although Harper’s government may appeal and delay implementation for a few years. Let’s hope they do the right thing and allow members the right to choose union representation.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
2
Government mum on appeal of RCMP union ruling
Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service
April 7, 2009
The RCMP and federal government were silent Tuesday on whether they will appeal a landmark court ruling that allows the Mounties to unionize — a decision that could have implications for both the police service’s culture and fir government coffers.
The ruling comes as Liberal MP Dan McTeague prepares to introduce in the coming weeks, for the third time, a private member’s bill in the House of Commons. It would permit the 22,000-member force to unionize, a right already given to other police forces in Canada.
“The government would be ill-advised to appeal this decision,” said McTeague, an MP for the Toronto-area constituency of Pickering-Scarborough East.
McTeague said the decision, if enacted, could give the Mounties the power to collectively fight such things as a federal decision late last year to role back previously negotiated wage increases.
He also predicted that unionization would boost morale in a force several reports have criticized for its top-down approach.
An Ontario judge struck down on Monday a 90-year ban on unionization, declaring “the legal landscape” has changed since the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a law 10 years ago outlawing RCMP collective bargaining.
Superior Court Justice Ian MacDonnell gave the federal government an 18-month grace period to repeal its prohibition, which he said violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
The RCMP is the only police force in the country whose members are not permitted to unionize, because of their history of being a quasi-military organization — such as spies and soldiers —that sets them apart from the rest of the unionized public service.
“Throughout the 20th century, management of the RCMP was unequivocally hostile to the prospect of unionization of the force,” wrote MacDonnell, who acknowledged that the Mounties are a “uniquely Canadian institution” whose members work nationally, provincially and municipally.
“What the RCMP has not shown is why those differences require greater limits on the associational freedoms of members,” said the decision. “The importance of stable, reliable, neutral and uninterrupted service is common to all police forces. Why does the wider jurisdiction of the RCMP, or its status as a uniquely Canadian institution, make the labour-relations models in place for other police forces inappropriate?”
The ruling does not repeal a prohibition on the RCMP’s right to strike, because they provide an essential service.
The RCMP refused to comment on the decision, referring all calls to the federal Treasury Board, which also refused to say whether the ruling will be appealed within the 30-day deadline.
The ruling was a victory for the Mounted Police Association of Ontario and the B.C. Mounted Professional Police Association, two organizations of rank-and-file members. In court documents, the associations alleged intimidation, sexual harassment, racism, unwarranted misconduct investigations of members, and management corruption and abuse of authority.
Patrick Mehain, president of the B.C. group, said a union could give members bargaining power to retire earlier, fight wage restraints and, among other things, give members a voice to challenge the “very tight old-boys’ network” in the RCMP management.
“They would not be supreme overlords of the RCMP members anymore,” Mehain said.
He could not predict whether a union drive would succeed, but he acknowledged it would be a challenge winning over officers. Only about 500 of the RCMP’s 6,000 members in B.C. belong to his voluntary association.
The RCMP, in response to employee complaints, created employer-employee committees 35 years ago, but MacDonnell said they are not independent associations formed or chosen by RCMP members.
The ruling flies in the face of a September 1999 decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, but MacDonnell concluded that times have changed, notably as a result of a surprise Supreme Court ruling two years ago that found collective bargaining to be a constitutional right.
RCMP Staff-Sgt. Bob Meredith, an RCMP staff relations officer, said a survey several years ago showed there was little appetite for a union.
“The majority of members don’t want it,” said Meredith, a rank-and-file officer in Sherwood Park, Alta. He said the court case was launched by a relatively small number of officers and “nowhere near a majority” of Mounties are members of the voluntary associations involved in the legal challenge.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
3 
10
Its about time these cops came into this century. Maybe this will put an end to the abuse they suffer with respect to undermanned, under gunned, posts where there is no back up, no proper accommodation, superior abuse ad naseum.
Instead of taking years for their complaints to be heard and aired, union representation will hold management to account, as well as keeping the membership up to par.
The DSRRs toothless hat in hand days appear to be over. Good for the men and women of the RCMP.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
11 
3