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 Union Enforce a Fine Against Members Who Cross a Legal Picket Line?

by David Doorey December 5, 2008
written by David Doorey December 5, 2008

The Ontario Court of Appeal issued a decision this week in a case called Birch v. Union of Taxation Employees.  It involved an attempt by the union to collect in court a fine imposed on two members who crossed the union’s legal picket line during a strike.  The fine arose from the fact that crossing the picket line breached a term of the union’s constitution.  The Supreme Court ruled in Berry v. Pully that a union constitution is a contract, and that each person who joins the union is bound by it.  So it would seem to make some sense at first glance that a person who agrees to a contract term requiring them to not cross a picket line, but who then does so, should be liable for whatver result is called for in the contract.
But the Court of Appeal refused to enforce the contract term.  It ruled that the penalty clause was ‘unconsionable’ and therefore unenforceable.  First, the Court ruled that there is an inequality of power between unions and their members in the negotiation of the contract.  Essentially, the union writes the constitution and workers can either agree or not agree.  Of course, that is true of employment contracts generally in most cases.  The employer has all of the bargaining power, it writes the contract, and employees can either accept the terms or not.   There are a few (very few) cases out there where courts have struck down terms of employment contracts that favoured employers (such as short notice periods) as being unconscionable. 
The court then noted that it is not ‘inequality of bargaining power’ in itself that renders a contract unconscionable, but the abuse of that bargaining power by the imposition of ‘very unfair’ terms.  What are ‘very unfair’ terms is a very subjective test that gives judges wide discretion.  Here, two of the judges found that the amount of the fine (set at the gross wages received by the employees for the days they crossed the picket line) was ‘very unfair’.   One judge, Juriansz J.A., found that the amount was not very unfair.   The test does not help the parties predict what is enforceable and what isn’t.
The case does not appear to rule that penalty clauses in union constitutions are per se unenforceable.  It is just that in this case, the majority believed the amount of the fine was too high.  Thus, little deference is given to the union and its members in defining internal union matters, such as how members should behave during legal strikes. 
The majority noted that there was no evidence that the union suffered harm as a result of its members crossing the picket line.   That part of the decision is a bit odd to me.  If the members of a union vote to strike, but then a bunch of them actually cross the picket line to enable the employer to keep producing, wouldn’t that undermine the union’s efforts to pressure the employer to agree to a better collective agreement?  Quantifying the harm to the union may be difficult, but this is a problem in a lot of contract cases.   The majjority here seems to require the union to actual prove a measurable loss due to members breaking ranks and crossing the picket line.  How can it do that?  The Court doesn’t give much guidance as to what would have been a fine that was not ‘very unfair’.
The other odd part of this decision, noted by the dissenting judge, is that the employees who crossed the picket line could simply have not joined the union or could have renounced their membership before crossing the picket line.  Union membership was not a requirement of employment (it was not a ‘closed shop’).  If they were not members of the union, then the Constitution wouldn’t apply to them.   Yet they chose to remain bound to the contract, including the penalty clause, but then refused to comply with the rules of membership they had agreed to. 
I am not sure that unions do themselves a favour in any event by trying to enforce fines against their members in the courts.  I don’t have a philosophical problem with it –I think people who join unions should comply with the rules of the union, or engage in the union’s democratic processes to try and change them.  But I think it looks bad from a PR perspective, and unions right now have a serious public image problem. Suing your members gives union-bashers (like the National Post, for example) ammunition in their campaigns to paint unions as tyrants, picking on poor defenseless workers.  And I doubt unions benefit much anyways from trying to collect the fines.  Courts aren’t enforcing them.  Ideally, unions could provide sufficient benefits to their members that canceling their membership would be a sufficient punishment for people who violate the union’s Constitution.  Even the majority in this case found that suspending a membership as a punishment is fine.
What do you think?  Should unions fine members who cross their own union’s picket line?  Should courts enforce these fines?

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
Is Wal-Mart's Closing of Unionized Store in Quebec an Unfair Labour Practice in Saskatchewan?
next post
Osgoode LLM Labour Law Students

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·
7h

@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·
8h

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·
9h

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.