HEU

May 28, 2003

No HEU Convention in 2003

Correction: Last week I wrote that the Hospital Employees' Union would be holding a convention in October where dissatisfied members might challenge the executive which declined to resign after the 57% rejection vote. A self described HEU activist sent an email to point out that even though the last HEU convention was held in October 2002, there will be no HEU convention in 2003. Dissatisfied members will have to wait until early 2004 for the next HEU convention.

May 22, 2003

HEU Serves the Public Interest

The Hospital Employees' Union (HEU) is facing enormous challenges. Thousands of its members are likely to lose their jobs as the result of the Campbell government using legislation to break its contract. The 57% rejection by the HEU members, who voted on a package of concessions to save jobs, will worsen the problems faced by the union. In some unions the executive would resign after that kind of rejection vote on a key issue. In the case of HEU, any internal shakeup will depend on what the members choose to do at the union's fall convention. The union put little or no effort into selling the package of concessions it recommended to its members. After two years of strong attacks on the Campbell government, some may have seen the concessions as a swift 180 degree about face that was done with little or no persuasive communication to the members. It is interesting to contrast that failure to communicate with the outstanding job HEU does in its advocacy work.

The most recent success scored by HEU is found in the ruling of The Honourable Mr. Justice Macaulay in the case between the union and the province's five regional health authorities and the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA). In his decision the judge wrote:

"I am satisfied that the HEU raises serious issues, both as to the alleged failure of the regional health boards to hold meetings with members of the public present, as required by statute, and as to the manner in which the PHSA was created and authority delegated to it. The HEU has a genuine interest, albeit an indirect one, in protecting the livelihood of its members and acting as an advocate to oppose changes that it views as harmful. The HEU also serves the public interest by applying its knowledge and expertise relating to the delivery of health services in the province to the issues raised. The interests of labour do not end at some artificial boundary between the economic and the political." (emphasis added)

On the practice of all health authorities holding most of their meetings in camera, the judge ruled that the health authorities "failed completely to address the statutory requirement that the public be present except in the limited circumstances set out in s. 8." of the Act. When commenting on a submission by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the judge observed that it showed "a cynical favouring of the interest of the bureaucracy over that of the public …" When it came to a remedy, however, the judge found that the health boards must simply obey the law and open their meetings to the public unless they can satisfy the very limited reasons for excluding the public. Fortunately for the public, the judge rejected HEU's alternative remedy of waiting to see if the government wanted to rewrite the legislation.

While the HEU lost its argument that the Provincial Health Services Authority was improperly constituted, it scored an important win when the judge wrote "In my view, the Minister has not delegated any of his duties. The functions of the PHSA are administrative and advisory. The Minister remains legally and politically responsible." Anyone listening to the legislative debate on Collin Hansen's budget might think that the Minister thinks the Health Authorities can shield him from his political responsibilities. Maybe this ruling can be used to encourage Hansen to answer questions rather than referring critics to unelected, unaccountable boards who, until this judicial decision, chose to meet behind closed doors.