The question of whether the future is friendly for Telus is still on hold, but arbitration holds out hope for reconnecting the company with its disgruntled union.

The country’s second-largest telecommunications company, which uses ‘the future is friendly’ as one of its main advertising taglines, is trying to disconnect itself from a number of pressing situations.

Telus was facing the possibility that more than 10,000 staff – members of the Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU) – could go on strike.

On January 29, the union released the results of its most recent strike vote, with 86.3 per cent voting in favour of strike action. The previous strike mandate had expired.

But the next evening, the union’s executive council said it was prepared to accept the binding arbitration offered by the company earlier in the week.

“This was not an easy decision to make,” acknowledged TWU president Rod Hiebert.

“We welcome the opportunity to engage in binding arbitration,” Telus president and CEO Darren Entwistle said in a statement. “Binding arbitration provides a process whereby Telus can arrive at a new collective agreement that supports our team’s future competitiveness.”

The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) had earlier released a ruling that removed a CIRB-imposed communications “quiet” period and required Telus’s wholly owned subsidiary, Telus Communications Inc., to offer binding arbitration to the TWU in order to reach a collective agreement.

The CIRB ruled that Telus had violated the Canada Labour Code and that it was up to the union to decide whether or not to accept the offer.

Telus also said the offer of binding arbitration would contain terms of reference similar to those established in previous arbitrated settlements, including taking into account:

* The economic growth and competitiveness of the company given the changing needs of customers, technological advances and the competitive dynamics of the industry.

* The company’s ability to operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.

* Comparability with other collective agreements within the industry.

* The importance of good labour-management relations.

But the TWU’s Hiebert said that, contrary to the perception that may have been created by the company, the terms and conditions which will apply to the binding arbitration “have not yet been determined.”

The CIRB retains jurisdiction should the parties be unsuccessful in reaching agreement on those terms and conditions.

“The union’s decision to accept binding arbitration comes after more than three years of fruitless negotiations with Telus,” the union said.

“In light of the very lengthy term of negotiations and the incredible intransigence of the company in our attempt to negotiate a revised, respectful collective agreement, the executive is convinced it is clearly the option that is in its members’ best interests.”

Earlier in the week, Telus had given the TWU formal notice that it was withdrawing its final offer, tabled on January 19.

Negotiations for that contract first began in late 1999, about a year before their deal expired. Talks have been ongoing since November 2000.

The two sides have been trying to negotiate a new agreement, combining four formerly separate collective agreements into one – a result of the merger of BC Tel with Alberta’s Telus.

Before the announcement the union was prepared to accept binding arbitration, one analyst said he didn’t hold out much hope for a solution.

“This is not a situation I am optimistic about,” said Ian Angus, president of the Ajax, Ont.-based telecommunications consulting firm Angus TeleManagement Group. “This is a battle nobody is going to win and it will leave a bad taste in everybody’s mouth, if it hasn’t already.”

According to Angus, mistakes have been made on both sides.

The situation may have been different, he added, if things had been handled differently in the early 1990s. At that point, Telus and its predecessor companies should have been working with their employees to prepare for the new world and competition, said Angus.

“It wouldn’t have been easy, but they would have had enough time.”

Compared to other phone companies, he said, Telus was overstaffed. “They’re doing what they should have done (more than) 10 years in a year or two. The union is not thrilled with this,” he said, referring to massive layoffs and cost-saving measures.

While the radical changes in the work world may well have been necessary, said Angus, the union is determined not to lose any of its past gains.

All this has contributed to create what Angus calls a “poisonous relationship. You don’t see any other phone companies where the union is saying that the service is bad and management holding meetings with analysts and saying the union is in the 19th century.”

A series of ads launched by the union, which spoof Telus’s whimsical campaign that uses animals as a backdrop to pitch the company’s products, is an example of what Angus is talking about.

The union versions, also using animals, focus on Telus’s service record and recommend that “fed-up customers can contact the CRTC.”

In response, Telus went to court to prevent the union ads from airing, and last week, the Supreme Court of B.C. granted an injunction precluding the TWU from infringing on the company’s copyrighted works, which includes forcing the union to remove the ads from its website.

Just over half the 10,760 TWU members live in B.C.

Hiebert also maintains that there has been severe collateral damage. “Our front-line service professionals are stressed out,” he said.

“They are concerned that their job might be next. They face customers who are justifiably angry. They have been threatened, yelled at and denigrated because of poor service levels at Telus while they have been forced to do more with less. The union has been left to deal with members who have broken down under the pressure and have been left crying on the job,” said Hiebert.

Angus said even if a strike had happened, the union was in a weak position.

“The union’s problem in calling a strike is they don’t have an enormous amount of leverage. A long strike would (have) very likely hurt Telus, with some of their customers going to Sprint, and some of their business customers going to Bell West . . . but on the whole, the telephone network works pretty much automatically.

Telus would probably still get its phone bills out and make money.”

The union said in a statement Friday that they “appreciated the solidarity that our members have extended over these difficult months and years and look forward to their continued support as we move toward a successful resolution of our contract dispute with Telus.”