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

Can Cadillac Fairview Terminate Striking Parking Lot Workers?

by David Doorey November 16, 2009
written by David Doorey November 16, 2009

This past summer, Cadillac Fairview, which owns the TD Centre in Toronto, locked out its unionized workers and contracted out their work to a third party contractor.  A month or so after that, it decided to terminate the locked out workers and use the contractor instead.  The background facts are described in this OLRB decision that involved a variety of preliminary issues surrounding the union’s complaint that the employer has violated the Labour Relations Act.  Here is the letter that Cadillac Fairview sent to the terminated workers.
The Labour Relations Act protects workers from discrimination and termination of their employment because they have exercised rights under the Act, such as joining a union and engaging in collective bargaining.  The key provisions in this regard are Section 70, 72, and 76.  You might think it is pretty straightforward that contracting out the work of unionized workers and firing them all would be discrimination on the basis of union activity.  But this is one of those grey areas in the law.
Labour law students in Canada read an OLRB case called Kennedy Lodge, in which the OLRB ruled an employer had not breached the Act by contracting out bargaining unit jobs and dismissing the workers.  The Board ruled that an employer can do this as long as its motivation is to avoid the costs associated with a union, and not to punish workers for joining a union and bargaining a collective agreement.   The Board found:

The facts of this case do not disclose any desire on the part of the employer to rid itself of union representation of its employees.  Rather a legitimate business decision was made which resulted in an annual saving of around $50,000.  The fact that the union and the employees were adversely affected does not of itself taint the legitimacy of that decision.

 You can imagine that the labour movement thinks that distinction is ridiculous–a decision to fire all of the unionized workers to save costs is a decision to avoid the union.  
In this case, Cadillac Fairview is arguing that it sought revisions to the bargaining structure, and other changes, but the union would not budge.  It then contracted out the work and found that the new contractor was working out very well, and therefore a decision was made to make the contacting out permanent.
Do you think that Cadillac Fairview should be able to permanently replace the lockout out union members?  We will keep an eye out for the decision…

1 comment
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
Capitalism Needs Strong Government Regulation, says over 75% of Canadians
next post
Is a "Consensual" Relationship Between a Manager and a Subordinate Cause for Dismissal?

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.