ANALYSIS | Air Canada's 'frustrated' bargaining process

Having a union membership reject a deal recommended by its leadership not just once but twice is "very unusual," says former union leader Buzz Hargrove.

But as he and other labour analysts tell CBCNews.ca, the very real prospect of the federal government forcing Air Canada's flight attendants back to work, as itthreatened to dowith the airline's support staff in June, has hung over these negotiations from the outset and changed the bargaining dynamic.

Hargrove, the longtime head of the Canadian Auto Workers who stepped down in 2008, said Tuesday he couldnt recall another instance in Canadian labour annals to rival the current situation involving Air Canada and its flight attendants.

The flight attendants have now rejected two tentative agreements negotiated by their union bargaining committee since their contract expired onMarch 31, 2011.

"It really raises a question of the confidence the members have in the leadership of the union," said Hargrove.

Buthe also observed that the political climate in Ottawa is playing a large role in the situation.

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt has said the federal government will intervene if the flight attendants go on strike andmay change the federal Labour Code if needed.Late Tuesday afternoon, she saidthe federal government is referring the situation to the Canada Industrial Relations Board

"I think one of the big differences here, and the big problems, is the government looking over everyone's shoulder," said Hargrove, who worked in the airline industry for nearly 25 years.

"Everyone knows the government is going to legislate something, so everybody feels pretty comfortable to ignore everything. It's just bastardizing, for lack of a better word, the whole collective bargaining process."

'Real frustration' at Air Canada

While times have been unsettled at Air Canada for years, Hargrove says that really doesnt explain the current situation.

"I think there is a degree of real frustration there, and rightfully so, but that doesnt explain how the [union] leadership not once but twice gets into this kind of a situation where they so misread the members, on the second go-around, especially."

Hargrove said it's up to union leaders what happens next, and that they're in a "very difficult situation."

"No matter what they do, it's apparent they don't have the confidence of the membership. That is the worst case for a union committee or a union leader to be in."

Maurice Mazerolle, associate professor at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University, and head of the school's Centre for Labour Management Relations, agrees that, under normal circumstances, the failure to ratify agreements that the union bargaining committee had unanimously endorsed would be seen as a sign the union leadership didn't really understand the concerns of its membership or did not effectively communicate with its members.

In some industries, standard practice would be for the committee to resign right away and be replaced by representatives who do have the confidence of the membership.

What's different about the Air Canada situation, however, is that from the beginning of the negotiating process, both sides knew that the most likely outcome, if it came to a strike, would be that the flight attendants would be legislated back to work quickly and a settlement would be imposed by an arbitrator.

That's not only because Raitt said as much but because she's done it before. The government used thethreat of back-to-work legislation to thwart a strike by Air Canadasales and support staff in June; then,that same month,it legislated locked-out Canada Post workersback to work.

Opportunity lost

Given that fact, the flight attendants' votes against the two proposed contracts can be read as an indication that the membership felt the union squandered the only opportunity to get the best deal possible, said Mazerolle.

"Part of it is the message to the leadership: 'Why not take a tough stand all the way to the end? Why should you compromise with the employer when you could have hung tough on our issues, knowing you're not going to get an agreement, and then we'll have a better case at arbitration'," he said.

Management's will to negotiate in good faith at the bargaining table has also been compromised by the threat of back-to-work legislation, Mazerolle says.

"Why would they give their best last offer to the union? They have to reserve something for the arbitrator," he said.

Knowing that any walkout is likely to be cut short by legislation also greatly diminishes the effectiveness of a strike as a bargaining tool, since both sides know the cost of a strike under such circumstances compared to the usual threat of an open-ended shutdownwill be minor.

"There's not as much incentive to engage in truth-telling when there's nothing at risk," said Mazerolle.