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

Attempt to Use Fake Unions to Block Real Union Fails in Alberta

by David Doorey January 30, 2018
written by David Doorey January 30, 2018

A central premise underlying Canadian collective bargaining law is that employees should have the right to select both (1) whether to join a union and opt for collective over individual bargaining and (2) which union they want to represent them.  The second choice is limited in the “Wagner-style” model we use in Canada and the USA by the “majoritism” and “exclusivity” principles:  to obtain the right to represent any employee, a union must establish that it represents a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.  If a union represents a majority of employees, then the law bestows on that union a right to be the exclusive representative of all of the employees in the bargaining unit.  Majority rules.
Our labour laws regulate when a union can apply to represent employees in order to avoid continuous ALRBapplications for certification by unions.  If the employees are already represented by a union, and there is a collective agreement in effect, then another union cannot apply to displace the existing union (sometimes called a “union raid”) except during certain specified times near the end of the collective agreement, known as the “open period”.   All of this is explained in Chapters 39 (The Unionization Process) and 46 (The Regulation of Unions:  Legal Status, Duty of Fair Representation, and Decertification) of The Law of Work: Complete Edition.
Therefore, an existing collective agreement can prevent an application by a union to represent workers.  Sometimes, employers attempt to use this rule to avoid unionization attempts by real, independent unions by encouraging or facilitating “voluntary recognition” with a fake,  non-independent (employer dominated), or more employer-friendly union.
This is what happened in a recent decision from Alberta called Brenda Stratford Foundation.  On January 19, a union certification vote was conducted but the ballots were sealed because the employer argued that the employees were already represented by other unions.
Facts
The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) applied to represent all non-managerial employees of a long-care facility that operated out of two buildings.   The employer responded by arguing that the application was “untimely” because the employees were already covered by existing collective agreements.   The parties to those alleged agreements were the employer and two “Employees’ Associations”.  The employer alleged that it had “voluntarily recognized” the associations and entered into collective agreements with them.
The facts disclosed that the “presidents” of the two employee associations held poorly attended meetings with employees and ask them about their concerns.  The presidents would then meet with the employer and explain the concerns.  The employer would then tell the presidents what it was prepared to give the employers and the presidents took those information back to the employees in another poorly attended meeting and sometimes the presidents would also speak to employees on the work floor.  Agreements were then signed.  The agreements were considered confidential and employees were not permitted to see them (!).
AUPE argued that the associations were not real unions, and that they did not represent a majority of the employees in the bargaining units and, therefore, that the agreements could not act as a bar to an application for certification by a real independent union.
Decision
The Alberta Labour Board focused on the question of whether the associations held majority support at the time the employer voluntarily recognized them.  Although voluntary recognition is permitted in Alberta (as in all Canadian jurisdictions except Quebec) as an alternative to the statutory union certification process, voluntary recognition still requires majority employees support.  The Board wrote:

Employees can provide representational authority through the Code’s certification process. If, instead, voluntary recognition is claimed (as it is here), authority to represent employees remains equally important and it must be shown through some other means.

In this case, there was no evidence that a majority of employees in the bargaining units supported the associations.   In Alberta (unlike in Ontario and Manitoba), the law does not require a collective agreement be ratified by a majority of employees to be effective.   A ratification vote on the supposed collective agreements was not taken here and so there was no vote based evidence of the level of employee support for the associations or the agreements.  Moreover, the peculiar practice of keeping the agreement confidential suggests that associations were not in fact representing the employees in bargaining at all.
Therefore, the associations are not “unions” and the agreements they entered into were not collective agreements.  In the result, the associations and their agreements with the employer could not act as a bar to the application for certification by the AUPE.  The Board ordered that the ballots be counted.
Issues for Discussion
Voluntary recognition is permitted in most jurisdictions in Canada.  This process permits an employer and union to bypass the usual union certification process that requires a union to prove to the government that it represents a majority of employees.  However, a voluntarily recognized union must still have the support of a majority of employees.
1.   How can a voluntary recognized union prove that it had majority employee support at the time of the agreement?
2.   Do you think governments should continue to permit voluntary recognition, or should all unions be required to be “certified” in order to represent employees in Canada?
 
 

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
Still Time to Submit Your Paper for the Inaugural Law of Work Best Paper Award
next post
Random Drug & Alcohol Testing Struck Down at Teck Coal

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
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
6h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

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 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
6h

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 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
7h

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
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.