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

Can the NBA Use Replacement Refs in Toronto?

by David Doorey September 14, 2009
written by David Doorey September 14, 2009

 The NBA season start is just around the corner (GO RAPTORS!), but the collective agreement between the NBA Refs Association (the union) and the NBA expired on September 1st and there is no new agreement in place.  The NBA has indicated that it will ‘lock out’ the unionized refs and begin the season with ‘replacement workers’–refs called up from the minor leagues–if no deal if reached by the beginning of the NBA season.  The bargaining situation is described in this Globe and Mail piece.
Trouble is that the NBA has one Canadian franchise–the Toronto Raptors–who fall under the provincial jurisdiction of Ontario for the purposes of labour law.  Ontario law states very clearly that an employer cannot ‘lock out’ workers and use replacement workers until they have first jumped through a bunch of procedural hurdles, including exhausting a conciliation process run by the Ministry of Labour. (See section 79(2)) Therefore, if the NBA and the union have not utilized the Ontario conciliation process, it would seem to follow that the NBA could not lock out the unionized refs in Toronto Raptors home games.
The same issue arose in the mid-1990s, but that was before Toronto had been awarded a franchise.  In 1995, the NBA locked out the refs (they apparently like this strategy) and attempted to use replacement refs for exhibition games played in Toronto.  The union filed an unlawful lockout application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.  The NBA argued that it did not employ any refs in Canada because it did not have any teams in Canada and only visited occasionally to play exhibition games.  Even then, the OLRB ruled that Ontario laws applied and that the NBA could not lockout its unionized refs in games played in Ontario.   Here is the 1995 decision.
Now that a permanent franchise is in Toronto, the union’s case would seem even stronger.  The OLRB also rejected league arguments that the union was not a ‘union’ under Ontario law, and that it should not exercise its discretion to order a remedy, since Toronto is only a very small part of the larger collective bargaining relationship governed by U.S. laws.  In other words, if you play regularly in Toronto, you are bound by Ontario employment laws.  A similar ruling was made by the OLRB in the case of the professional baseball referees also in 1995.
Presumably, the NBA is aware of the problem now, since it lost the 1995 decision.  The question is whether any thing has been done about it.   I’m not sure if the parties made any attempt this time to address the situation, perhaps by sending the bargaining parties to Ontario to meet with a conciliator.   I doubt they did.  Does anyone know if the situation has changed so that the 1995 decision would not govern?
This could make for an interesting scenario if no deal is reached.  Would it mean that NBA refs are refereeing only Raptor home games, while every other game is refereed by replacement workers?  Looks that way, doesn’t it.  But what would their terms of employment be given that the collective agreement has already expired?  The most likely answer is that they would be govered by the terms of the expired agreement pursuant to the ‘statutory freeze’ provisions in the Labour Relations Act (Section 86(1))
That section ‘freezes’ the terms of an expired collective agreement during the bargaining process until the parties are in a legal strike or lockout position.  Since the NBA is not in a legal lockout position in Ontario, the freeze would still apply, I think.  Does anyone have a different take on how this would play out?

4 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
Top 10 Labour & Employment Law Articles (Sept. 12)
next post
When is cursing at your Employer Wilful Misconduct?

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 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.