Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

The Vaughn Transit Strike: A Very Odd Tory Back to Work Bill

by David Doorey November 24, 2011
written by David Doorey November 24, 2011

Three Conservative MPPs from the Vaughn region have introduced a Private Members’ Bill calling for the transit strike in Vaughn to ended by back to work legislation.
Here is the proposed Bill (Bill 3).
The proposed legislation has zero chance of being enacted, since neither the Liberals nor the NDP members will support it.  The Liberals may introduce their own back to work legislation at some point, though they continue to say that they will let the parties work it out themselves.  In this case, the union and the workers would love to end the strike and go to interest arbitration, but the three private corporations involved would prefer the strikes continue.  Governments tend to find back to work legislation less palatable when the employer opposes it.
This private members’ Bill is unusual in a number of respects.  Firstly, it would not not only end the current work stoppages, it would also prohibit future work stoppages at the three employers involved (in Section 4).  The idea is to treat transit services in Vaughn in the same way we now treat transit services in Toronto–no right to strike or lockout.  I’ve argued before that there is no principled basis for treating employees of the TTC differently than employees of all the other transit companies in Ontario.  The Liberals will have a difficult time explaining their differential treatment of transit work stoppages from municipality to municipality.   Transit is no less essential to Vaughn residents than it is to Torontians.  But the Liberals have embarked down this road, so we will let them explain why transit is “essential” in some places, but not others.
This crazy Bill prevents work stoppages at three named employers (First Student Canada; Miller Transit, Ltd. and Veolia Transportation, Inc). Therefore, if one of those contractors is later replaced with a different contractor, the Bill would not apply to the new contractor. That seems pretty stupid.
The Bill also lists criteria for the arbitrator to consider, as is the Tory way.  Check this out:

(2) In making an award, the arbitrator shall take into consideration all factors it considers relevant, including the following criteria:
1. The employer’s ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation.
2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of the decision or award, if current funding and taxation levels are not increased.
3. The economic situation in Ontario and York Region.
4. A comparison, as between the employees and other comparable employees in the public and private sectors, of the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed.
5. The employer’s ability to attract and retain qualified employees.
6. The purposes of the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997.

These criteria make no sense given that we are dealing with three huge foreign multinational corporations. The “employer” is not the local government (as in the TTC’s case).  Vaughn transit services comprise a very tiny part of the business of these three foreign corporations.

Why would the economic situation in Ontario and York Region, or the tax rates in Vaughn, have any relevance whatsoever to the ability of a huge Illinois-based private multinational corporation to give a raise to a tiny portion of its workforce in a Toronto suburb?
Why would that giant multinational corporation have to cut any services in Vaughn just because the government of Vaughn decides not to raise local taxes? I assume the contract for services negotiated by the municipality would require the transit companies to maintain a certain level of services.   An arbitrated raise might cut into the profit margins of the private corporations who must provide those services, but that is the risk of running this sort of business.  The point of contracting out public services is to pass along that risk to the private sector.   Otherwise, what’s the point?

Criterium two is provocative, but pointless.  It says an arbitrator must consider what would happen if the government decided  not to put any additional money into public transit.  But so what.  There is no reason why the government should or must decide to freeze funding and tax rates. So after “considering’ that possible scenario, the arbitrator could go on and consider an alternative scenario: What if the government does increase funding in order to comply with the arbitration award? Or:  What if we let the huge multinational corporations that are receiving public funds in order to provide a public service worry about complying with the arbitration award?

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Should HRM Support or Fight Against Move towards Precarious Work?
next post
Strike Ends (Maybe) at Brandon University. Are Profs "Essential"?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
1h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923167Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
3h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
19 Feb

Tenants have associations, but landlords can't just ignore them. Is Landlord Tenant Law the next frontier in Freedom of Association litigation?

@TheLawofWork considers:

“The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in Landlord and Tenant Law”

https://lawofwork.ca/the-striking-absence-of-freedom-of-association-in-landlord-and-tenant-law/

Reply on Twitter 1362821027458334724Retweet on Twitter 13628210274583347243Like on Twitter 13628210274583347244Twitter 1362821027458334724
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.