Agreement on Yellowknife picketing rules nowhere in sight as strike rolls on

The City of Yellowknife and the Public Service Alliance of Canada are still battling over a court order that sets limits on how long striking workers can stop vehicles at picket lines.

On Friday Supreme Court Justice Andrew Mahar decided to adjourn court until next week so the union and the city have time to file new affidavits and prepare for witness cross-examinations. At issue is whether any cars have been stopped for longer than four minutes since the two sides decided on a picketing protocol on Feb. 22. 

The city and the union have been contesting the validity and details of an injunction granted on Feb. 14, and later amended. The union says that since they and the city agreed on a picketing protocol on Feb. 22, there have been no issues with picketers detaining vehicles for too long. 

The city and the union were in court all day Thursday to present arguments for and against the injunction. Christopher Lane, the lawyer representing the city, said that a court order is needed to prevent unduly long vehicle stoppages at the city's solid waste management plant and at the construction site for the new pool.

But Michael Fisher, the lawyer representing the union, says the agreement reached on Feb. 22 is working, so there's no reason for a court-ordered injunction. On Friday he said that the current court order creates a "chilling effect" on picketing efforts, and leaves union members scared that they might be charged with contempt of court over small issues.

The city initially asked for a court order to further restrict vehicle stoppages by picketers, and the union initially asked that the city's application for an injunction should be thrown out altogether because of alleged overreach in the City of Yellowknife's original ex parte injunction application.

An ex parte application is one where not all affected parties are present for the application. Under Canadian law, a judge may grant an interim injunction ex parte under certain conditions.

However, Judge Mahar made it clear Friday that he was not receptive to these arguments against the injunction.

"My position is that the agreement that was reached last week should be maintained. The only issue left for me is whether the understanding should be a court order or an agreement," he said. 

An illegal stop, or a friendly chat?

In court Friday, the lawyers discussed new affidavits related to factual claims supporting the injunction.

The city filed a new affidavit Thursday from a woman who says her car was stopped for more than four minutes. But the union's lawyer said he was filing an affidavit from the picketer involved, which says the picketer and the woman were having a friendly chat, and that the woman could have indicated a desire to continue forward at any time. 

The city and the union both confirmed that they want to cross examine each other's witnesses when the hearing over the injunction reconvenes.

Justice Mahar tried to schedule further proceedings for next Thursday, but the city's lawyer said he would be in transit to Palm Springs at the time and so unavailable.

The judge will meet with the lawyers Friday afternoon to work out a schedule.

About 205 unionized city workers have been on strike since Feb. 8. The impasse is largely over wages.