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)
AlbertaCharter of Rights and FreedomsComparative Work LawEmployment RegulationSupreme Court of CanadaUnions and Collective Bargaining

Alberta Tests Right-Wing Republican Inspired Labour Laws

by David Doorey July 8, 2020
written by David Doorey July 8, 2020

Written by David Doorey, York University

We knew that Alberta’s United Conservative party would eventually get around to gutting labour laws and attacking unions. That process began yesterday. This is a very quick post, with more detailed commentary to follow in other posts on this blog.

With Bill 32, Restoring Balance in Alberta’s Workplace Act, 2020, the UCP becomes the first Canadian government to introduce laws modelled after the watered down version of Wagner Model in effect in the United States. The UCP had already re-introduced mandatory union ballots in last year’s Bill 2, An Act to Make Alberta Open for Business to replace the card-check model of counting support for collective bargaining. That change was designed to make it even more difficult for unions to organize new workers in what is already the least unionized province in Canada. Bill 32 goes much further in undermining the traditional Canadian model of collective bargaining in an effort to drag Canadian labour law downwards to the U.S. model. Think of Bill 32 as the canary in the coal mine. Other right wing governments, including those in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, are paying close attention.

Note firstly that Alberta has now, and has for decades had easily the lowest unionizations levels of any jurisdiction in Canada. The following chart from my book The Law of Work shows recent figures. In the private sector, union density is near or below 10 percent. Alberta is as close to a non-union province as we have in Canada. The conservative elites’ relentless campaign to attack unions in Alberta borders on obsession, driven by a strong ideological bent and powerful anti-union corporate lobbyists. The odds of a private sector employer in Alberta being unionized are lower than anywhere else in Canada.

D. Doorey, The Law of Work, 2nd Ed.

The most notable changes in Bill 32 relate to rules regulating unions dues and picketing. As I noted in this post from about a year ago which I wrote for Harvard Law School’s OnLabor blog, the UCP announced in its election platform that it intended to introduce a U.S. “Janus” style obligation on unionized workers to “opt into” the share of union dues that unions devote to what the UCP described as activities not related to the Labour Code. So this part of Bill 32 is not a surprise.

How the line will be drawn between Labour Code activities and non-Labour Code activities will no doubt spur years of litigation. Here is what Bill 32 says on that front:

This law is aimed at bogging down unions in red tape (which is funny because Alberta has a “Red Tape Reduction Minister”… seriously… who was there yesterday bragging about how Bill 32 reduces red tape!), since they are now required to tabulate, categorize, and constantly report on the division of costs as defined in vaguely worded statutes. More importantly, the UCP hopes that a lot of union members will opt out of paying part of their dues which will strain resources available for unions to participate in public discourse. I have doubts that the law will have a significant impact on union resources, but the law is no doubt an irritant that will create boon for labour lawyers who will have years of litigation trying to figure out what it all means.

That litigation will also almost certainly involves more Charter litigation. The union dues opt-in law will probably lead to a revisitation of the Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union decision from 1991, which upheld the right of unions to spend union dues on “political activities”. Justice Wilson famously wrote in that case:

Because drawing a distinction between collective bargaining and politics is so difficult it will always be debatable whether a union has “crossed the line” in  contributing its dues to certain purposes.  And where there is room for reasonable disagreement over the propriety of union spending there is bound to be litigation.  In my view, nothing could be more incompatible with the promotion of collective bargaining.  Since the ultimate aim of the system is to encourage the parties to settle their own disputes, any ruling which will encourage the parties to rush off to court is clearly counter‑productive… In summary, it seems to me that placing restrictions upon the way in which unions may spend their dues will lead to interminable problems and jeopardize the important government objective at stake in this appeal. 

Justice Bertha Wilson, Lavigne v. OPSUE, 1991

The UCP law requiring that workers opt-into dues is a different law than the one which was at issue in Lavigne, which simply required all employees to pay dues (Rand Formula) and left it to the union leadership to decide how those dues were spent. It will be interesting to see whether the new, arguably more robust freedom of association model developed by the SCC since 1991 will deal with legislation that reaches deep into the internal decisions of employee associations.

Another rule found in Bill 32 that is almost certain to be the subject of a Charter challenge restricts where and when workers can engage in peaceful picketing. A new provision requires unions to first obtain Labour Board approval to engage in secondary picketing. British Columbia has a similar model, and I believe (can anyone confirm this?), that law is the subject of a Charter challenge right now but I am not sure where the case sits. All laws that proscribe the right of workers to engage in peaceful picketing, regardless of location, are now constitutionally suspect as potential infringements of either or both freedom of association or expression. So watch for a multi-pronged Charter challenge against Bill 32 moving forward.

Bill 32 also includes additional little one-sided gifts to employers that have nothing to do with undermining unions. For example, a new law will permit employers to impose averaging agreements on employees against the employee’s wishes, which means in practice that employers can schedule work so as to ensure that they can avoid paying overtime pay. It is hard to imagine that a single employee in Alberta asked for a law denying them overtime pay, so it’s pretty clear this one is a straight up gift the employer lobby. You’d think with huge unemployment that a government would want to encourage less overtime and more hiring, but that is not a perspective the UCP sees looking exclusively through an employers’ lens.

So Bill 32 swings the pendulum very far to the right despite the now ubiquitous claim the law is intended to “restore balance”. Expect more Charter challenges and lots of protests. The Canadian Law of Work Forum will have more commentary on Bill 32 in the coming days, so check back.

David Doorey, “Alberta Imports Right-Wing Republican Inspired Labour Laws” Canadian Law of Work Forum (July 8 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=12847

0 comment
2
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
What CUPW v Foodora Reveals for the Future Litigation in Uber v Heller
next post
Child Labour in B.C.: Our Inadequate Enforcement Mechanisms

You may also like

Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure...

February 24, 2021

The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in...

February 19, 2021

Real Pleadings: Has Uber Created a New Service...

February 15, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Prof. Doorey’s Updated Beginners’ Guide to the Charter...

February 1, 2021

Calling the Shots: Is Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination a...

January 29, 2021

Would Rioting at Canada’s Parliament Building Be Grounds...

January 8, 2021

What is a Minority Union?

January 4, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

David Doorey on Jacobin: “Collective Bargaining Needs a...

December 16, 2020

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@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 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

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·
24 Feb

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.