The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • In the Media
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • In the Media
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Oh no. LCBO Workers Vote to Strike!

by David Doorey May 26, 2009
written by David Doorey May 26, 2009

    Employees of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario voted 93% in favour of a strike in the event that a new collective agreement cannot be reached.  The old collective agreement expired at the end of March.  A strike of LCBO employees in the middle of summer?  In the on-line responses to this Toronto Star article,  you can already see folks arguing that LCBO workers should not have a right to strike, as if selling wine and scotch is an essential service.  Give me a break.
I’ve learned that the union has filed a bad faith bargaining complaint against the employer on the basis that the employer is refusing to provide the union with information about existing benefit and compensation levels of bargaining unit employees.  Sounds like bargaining is not going well.  Section 17 of the Labour Relations Act, the duty to bargain in good faith and to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement, requires employers to provide the union with all of the information about the bargaining unit employees existing terms and conditions of employment.    The reason is that the union has a legal obligation to bargain on behalf of the entire bargaining unit, and therefore it must have all relevant information in order to prepare its bargaining positions and evaluate the employer’s positions.  If I can get the Union’s pleadings, I will post them under my “Real Pleadings” category.
There are risks to both sides of a strike.  The main risk is that  it could fuel demands for the LCBO to be privatized, an idea that has been around for years.  Indeed, as the Star story notes, the employer appears to be playing up the threat of privatization as part of its bargaining strategy. Perhaps the employer should be careful with this strategy.  Neither the employer nor the union has an interest in that happening.  But since the LCBO is effectively a state-supported monopoly, a strike would seriously cut the flow of wine and spirits.  A strike of some duration could very well improve the political viability and circumstances for revisiting the privatization idea.  Beware the rebellious hostility of summer drinkers scorned.

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is a Full Professor of Work Law and Labour Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Bronfenbrenner on Employer Anti-Union Behaviour
next post
Real Pleadings: OPSEU Bad Faith Bargaining Complaint Against LCBO

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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


Follow Us On Social Media

Substack
Bluesky

BlueSky Latest Posts

No posts available.

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gender
  • 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
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • Tax Law
  • 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.