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

Could York Strikers Return to Work While the Strike Continues

by David Doorey January 17, 2009
written by David Doorey January 17, 2009

While I’m dealing with the York strike (again), I want to address another question I was asked the other day by a member of the striking CUPE union:  Could a striker ask the employer to return to work while the strike is still continuing?
That question is actually dealt with in the Labour Relations Act, in Section 80.  What that section says, in a nutshell, is that at any time during the first 6 months of a strike, any person in the striking union can inform the employer, in writing, that they wish to return to work.  The employer must then reinstate the employee, on whatever terms the employer and employee agree.  So far, that might suggest a striking CUPE member could tell York she does not want to be on strike anymore, and the employer would then be required to bargain terms of reinstatement.  This sometimes happens when employers continue to operate during a strike.  Employees cross the picket line.  It doesn’t win them any fans among their fellow union members, but it is lawful.  It might violate some rule in the Union’s constitution, perhaps leading to the employee losing their union “membership”, for example.  But the person might care about that, and might not even be a member in the first place.  
But now look at the exceptions in part (2) of section 80.

Exceptions

(2) An employer is not required to reinstate an employee who has made an application to return to work in accordance with subsection (1),

(a) where the employer no longer has persons engaged in performing work of the same or similar nature to work which the employee performed prior to the employee’s cessation of work; or

(b) where there has been a suspension or discontinuance for cause of an employer’s operations, or any part thereof, but, if the employer resumes such operations, the employer shall first reinstate those employees who have made an application under subsection (1).

This language would seem to exclude most of the striking CUPE members, since York has discontinued the work that the strikers perform.  In most cases.  They have, however, reinstated classes in a few places, such as Osgoode Hall Law School, where a number of CUPE members teach.  My understanding is the classes taught by CUPE members at Osgoode did not resume (Is that right?).   But there is probably a decent argument that the the employer has “resumed operations” at Osgoode, don’t you think?    

If so, this would seem to mean that the striking CUPE members who teach at Osgoode, or at any other part of the school where classes have resumed (if there are any such people), could, if they want, “cross the picket line” and return to work.  They would not be covered by a collective agreement, because there isn’t one.  They would need to ‘bargain’ a new contract with Osgoode, but it would be unlawful for Osgoode to propose terms that “discriminate” against the CUPE member.  Usually, this means that the employer offers terms similar to what the old collective agreement required, or maybe what the employer is presently offering the strikers in bargaining.

So, maybe CUPE members who teach at Osgoode, would have an argument that they have a right to return to work (if they so desired).  But I doubt that any other CUPE members do at this time.  Do any of you labour lawyers or students have a different take on this question?

0 comment
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
Have York Deans Violated the Labour Relations Act?
next post
Most Downloaded Labour & Employment Law Articles (Jan. 18)

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.