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
Law of Work Archive

Conservative M.P. (Poilievre) Supports the Rand Formula as He Argues to Abolish It?

by David Doorey February 10, 2013
written by David Doorey February 10, 2013

There was an op-ed published last week by Conservative M.P. Pierre Poilievre, the guy who the Tories have chosen to be their torch bearer for their next attack on their political foe, the labour movement.  Here it is. The Federal and Ontario Conservative parties are busy trying to figure out how to cut off union funding in the hopes that this will weaken the ability of the labour movement to participate in political discourse and criticism of Conservative policies.
In the piece, Poilievre accuses the labour movement of forgetting the Rand Formula. I’ve explained what Rand said before: In a nutshell, Rand said that no one should be forced to become a union member, but that everyone in a bargaining unit and covered by a collective agreement should be required to pay union dues.  In Ontario and the Federal sector, the law incorporates this formula by providing that, if the union proposes in bargaining that a clause be included in the collective agreement requiring every employee in the bargaining unit pay the same amount of union due, then that clause will be included and the employer will deduct the dues and remit them to the union.  It’s in Section 47 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
Poilievre correctly notes that Rand found that it was “entirely equitable” (Rand’s words) to require every employee convered by a collective agreement to pay union dues.  But then he makes a leap from the Rand decision to his own view of what Rand might have thought about unions using dues for purposes not directly relating to collective bargaining.  Poilievre says this:












Poilievre, Conservative M.P.: Does He Agree or Disagree With the Rand Formula? Hard to Tell.


Conservative M.P. Poilievre: By contrast, Rand’s formula only required employees to fund the bargaining and administration of the collective agreement — nothing more. “I consider it entirely equitable then,” wrote Rand, “that all employees should be required to shoulder their portion of the burden of expense for administering the law of their employment, the union contract [the collective agreement].” His decision used the term “bargaining agent” six different times to refer to the union, which clearly delineated its raison d’être: bargaining — not politics.

Poilievre is taking liberty with the facts here.  Rand was never asked about whether the union dues he believed all employees should pay should be parsed into ‘collective bargaining’ and non-collective bargaining purposes. How dues would be spent wasn’t an issue put to him. Any lawyer knows that you can’t make assumptions about what a judge thought about an issue that was not argued or addressed directly in a decision.  Rand’s references to ‘bargaining agent’ do not mean what Poilievre claims.  A ‘bargaining agent” is simply a definitional term used throughout labour relations statutes to refer to the union that represents workers in a specific bargaining unit.  (See section 7 of the Ontario Act, for example). That is why Rand used it, and not as Poilievre suggests, to signal his views about how dues should be collected. The legal term “bargaining agent” doesn’t have a normative meaning.  If Poilievre doesn’t even know this most basic fact about labour law, then you have to wonder why this guy is dabbling in labour law amendments at all.
Rand was very aware that the union in the case before him was involved in political activities, if by that we mean advocating for stronger labour laws and campaigning against the Conservative parties of the mid 1940s.  These were highly charged political times, and the United Auto Workers were directly involved in those debates.  You could equally draw the conclusion from this fact that by not specifically saying that dues can only be used for purposes directly related to the bargaining and administration of the collective agreement that he was not interested in trying to draw a line between ‘bargaining’ issues and ‘non-bargaining issues’, but rather was prepared to leave that as an internal union issue.
But, in any event, Poilievre so far seems to be saying that he believes in the Rand Formula, which would require all bargaining unit employees to pay union dues, even nonunion members.  His only objection is that he believes workers should be able to ask that their dues not be spent on political causes with which they disagree.  That is essentially the way the law works throughout most of the United States.
However, although seemingly praising the Rand Formula throughout the article, he then suddenly surprises the reader in the last line by saying this:

If union leaders refuse to follow the Rand Formula, then why should anyone else?

Considering what he had written in the op-ed , you would think that his argument would be that the law should ban forced union membership and give workers the right to tell the union not to spend dues on political causes they disagree with.  But with this sudden, unexpected last line, his argument is suddenly jolted in a different direction.
He now appears to be arguing that since some unions bargain mandatory union membership clauses (which Rand rejected), and some unions spend part of the dues collected on political purposes (which Rand did not address), then there is no reason to Respect Rand’s main finding that all employees in a bargaining unit should have to pay union dues. Do you see the slight of hand there?  Until the last sentence, he never hints that he has a problem with Rand’s essential finding that all employees should pay union dues if that is what the majority of employees decide is reasonable.
Poilievre has to make this big leap of logic if he is to argue later in Parliament that mandatory union dues clauses should be made illegal, and not just forced union membership and use of dues for political causes with which a worker disagrees.  You see, Rand believed in the right of workers and unions to bargain mandatory union dues clauses, but the Tories do not.  That is why it is so very strange to see a Conservative MP cite the Rand Formula favourably, as Poilievre does here. The Tories need a way around the Rand Formula, recognizing that not even Conservative politicians have ever before made the untenable argument that the law should force unions to provide free services to nonmembers. However, that is exactly what the Ontario Conservatives are saying should happen, and probably Poilievre believes that too.

Do you agree with Poilievre’s argument?
Do you think the government should force unions to provide free services to nonunion members?

11 comments
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.

previous post
Are (Nonunion) Employees Better Off Without a Written Employment Contract?
next post
Chicago's Wage Theft Law: A Good Idea for Canada?

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

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
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
13h

Pitching @Uber as a ‘green’ company is some next level shit.

Uber Canada @Uber_Canada

UberX Share provides a greener way to get from A to B, by moving more people with fewer cars. Now available in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.

Reply on Twitter 1637978201598185472 Retweet on Twitter 1637978201598185472 7 Like on Twitter 1637978201598185472 32 Twitter 1637978201598185472
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
16h

For me, this simple little case brings into focus the most important issues for future of Canadian labour law.

What does it mean to say workers have freedom to associate when they can be fired for associating?

Should law protect nonunion workers’ right to strike? How so? …

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

Was reading a decision again in which a group of daycare workers selected a spokesperson to raise employment related concerns with boss.

She was fired.

Workers struck in solidarity. They too were fired.

Did you know that no Canadian law protects these workers from dismissal?

Reply on Twitter 1637939578446258179 Retweet on Twitter 1637939578446258179 4 Like on Twitter 1637939578446258179 38 Twitter 1637939578446258179
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
16h

Was reading a decision again in which a group of daycare workers selected a spokesperson to raise employment related concerns with boss.

She was fired.

Workers struck in solidarity. They too were fired.

Did you know that no Canadian law protects these workers from dismissal?

Reply on Twitter 1637934550755016704 Retweet on Twitter 1637934550755016704 29 Like on Twitter 1637934550755016704 105 Twitter 1637934550755016704
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.