The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Comparative Work LawEmployment RegulationOLRBUnions and Collective Bargaining

Banning Orders: Should Persistent Labour Standards Violators Be Denied the Right to Run a Business?

by David Doorey May 26, 2021
written by David Doorey May 26, 2021

Written by David Doorey, York University

I’m intrigued by a New Zealand law, introduced in 2016, that permits a labour court to essentially shut down a business and to ban a person from entering into employment contracts, acting as an officer of a company, or being involved in hiring employees.  A “banning order” can be made as a penalty for “persistent breaches” of employment standards legislation. The power to issue banning orders is found in Section 142M of the New Zealand Employment Relations Act, 2000.

Harnessing Risk to Provoke Legal Learning and Compliance

I have argued for many years that our system of labour standards enforcement in Canada is too weak and is poorly designed.  Our enforcement machinery fails to incentivize employers to invest in learning the laws and it fails to disincentivize and prevent persistent, deliberate violations by unscrupulous employers.  I described some of these rogue employers in this post from a few years back, in which I argued that the existing right to imprison employers who are persistent labour standards violators should be used more frequently.  I’m talking about deliberate, persistent violators, not the employer who just makes a mistake or is sloppy.  Remedies that simply order back-wages, compliance orders, and relatively small fines are reactive and weak.  Remedies and penalties need to provoke even rogue employers to learn and comply. That requires the law to alter the risk equation so that it makes more sense to comply than not comply with employment protection laws.

Prison is perhaps the ultimate sanction for wage thieves.  However, I have also advocated other types of remedies that would cause businesspeople to perk up, learn the law, and comply.

For example, I argued in a paper called A Model of Responsive Labour Law published in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal back in 2012 that among the remedial arsenal available to labour boards as a remedy for persistent or egregious labour standards violations should be the ability to order that employers remain neutral during union organizing campaigns, that such employers must provide a union demonstrating a basic threshold level of support a list of employees and their contact information, and that any union application for certification be dealt with pursuant to the card-check  method of testing employee wishes rather than mandatory certification vote.

In other words, the law would impose a form of “neutrality agreement” on employers who violate labour standards legislation on the theory that employers who won’t bother to learn and comply with basic standards are “low road”, “high risk” employers who have forfeited their right to speak about the supposed benefits of being non-union.  Labour Boards already have broad powers to remedy violations of labour relations legislation that disrupt union organizing campaigns, but I argued that access to unionization for employees of low-road employers should be fast-tracked through broader remedial powers under employment standards legislation. This regulatory technique involves harnessing risk to influence behaviour and provoke legal learning; it would also incentivize unions and other labour activists to assist in bringing statutory complaints on behalf of nonunion workers.  Professor Cynthia Estund of NYU Law has built on this model in her own work.

I’ve also argued in the past (see this post from 2010) that persistent violators of labour standards should be prohibited from being principles in a business, a right they forfeit when they demonstrate a lack of respect for the rule of law.  This is why the New Zealand law is so interesting to me.

The New Zealand “Banning Order”

Here’s the text of Section 142N, which explains what a “banning order” prohibits:

(1) If the court makes a banning order, the order must prohibit the person from doing 1 or more of the following:

(a) entering into an employment agreement as an employer:

(b) being an officer of an employer:

(c) being involved in the hiring or employment of employees.

(2) A person who is subject to a banning order may do something prohibited by the order if the person first obtains the leave of the court to do so.

A banning order can last up to 10 years and it essentially shuts down the affected business and prevents an individual subject to the order from acting as an officer in any business or from being involved in the hiring of any employees.

The New Zealand Labour Court has ruled that the remedy is “draconian” and should be used sparingly.  However, banning orders have been issued. For example, in a 2018 decision called Victoria 88 Limited,  the Court imposed a banning order on an employer and its principal for persistent wage and holiday violations as well as failure to provide notice of termination. The Court has said that a banning order should be perceived as an order that protects the public and workers and that serves a deterrent role. In the Victoria 88 case, the banning order prohibited the employer from entering into any employment contract for three years, basically shutting down the business, and the principal from serving as an officer of any employer, being involved in hiring of any employee, or being a party to an employment contract for three years.

This type of order in Canada would at least prevent employers, like Peter Check, who create a business, exploit workers, disband the company, and then create a new company and repeat the entire process.  The right to create a corporation or serve as an officer of a corporation should be conditional on demonstration of responsible business behaviour, including compliance with basic labour protections.  The New Zealand law provides an example that puts this ideal into practice, and also serves to create a strong incentive for employers to learn and comply with those protections.

What do you think of New Zealand’s “banning order” law?  Is this something Canada governments should consider?  Why or why not?

David Doorey, “Banning Orders: Should Persistent Labour Standards Violators Be Denied the Right to Run a Business?” Canadian Law of Work Forum (May 26 2021): https://lawofwork.ca/banningorders/

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial 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.

1 comment

Random Steelworker May 26, 2021 - 3:50 pm

ISTM that that the law makes an artificial distinction between “labour” and “employment” law. Labour law is optional, employment law is mandatory. We have tolerated weak unfair labour practice enforcement partly in the name of “preserving the employment relationship” and mostly because employers really, really want labour law to be “optional”. What labour law really means is “you don’t have to have a union, but you do have to treat your employees right, or else” Alternately, whose choice is it to unionize, the employer’s or the employees? Does the employer have an interest to defend in operating without a union? I would say no, it is truly an employee’s choice. Just as it is improper for an employer to come between an employee and a lawyer, it is wrong when an employee wants to seek a union and an employer interferes with veiled threats.

I would also mandate neutrality of the workspace. If there is no union organizing on company property, there is no anti-union campaigning on company property. Seems fair.

Lastly, we really, really need to get rid of the inability to get the full union [protection package without a contract. That is the weak link. You have to stick you neck out to organize without the ability to grieve or a dues-paying organization behind you. Get rid of this weakness and employers lose their favorite target. Or legalize unfair labour practice strikes.

Log in to Reply
previous post
Dispelling Common Assumptions about Employees’ Legal Right to Sick Pay
next post
Ontario’s Infectious Disease Emergency Leave and the Common Law

You may also like

Models of Broader-Based Sectoral Collective Bargaining

February 3, 2023

Is Memorial University Illegally Preventing Workers from Joining...

February 2, 2023

What Might a Right to Strike for Non-Union...

December 16, 2022

Lessons for the Railway Showdown from a Victory...

November 30, 2022

Court Strikes Down Ontario’s Punitive Public Sector Wage...

November 29, 2022

New Video: Standing Up to the Notwithstanding Clause

November 25, 2022

On the Right to Strike in Canada and...

November 1, 2022

UPDATE: Ontario Invokes Notwithstanding Clause, Crushes Labour Rights...

October 31, 2022

R.O. MacDowell: Who Defines Appropriate Bargaining Units After...

October 10, 2022

(Video) Professor Doorey on ‘Micro Labour Law’ Below...

October 6, 2022

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
5h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 140 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 412 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
10h

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 84 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 242 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Oh fun.

‘AI is on the cusp of taking control: This is how it may all go wrong’

https://apple.news/AWvPXyT8WTVOs5byQvVk-3Q

Reply on Twitter 1640408084093779989 Retweet on Twitter 1640408084093779989 1 Like on Twitter 1640408084093779989 3 Twitter 1640408084093779989
Load More

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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.