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)
Charter of Rights and FreedomsCollective BargainingComparative Work LawHealth and SafetyMigrant WorkersOLRBOntarioStrikes and LockoutsSupreme Court of CanadaUnions and Collective BargainingUnited States

Do Ontario’s Collective Bargaining Laws Protect Migrant Worker Dismissed for Raising Collective Workplace Concerns?

by David Doorey September 16, 2020
written by David Doorey September 16, 2020

Written by David Doorey

In a complaint being litigated this week at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Gabriel Flores Flores, a seasonal agricultural worker from Mexico, alleges he was fired in reprisal for raising concerns on behalf of himself and his coworkers about the employer’s failure to protect them from COVID19. The background is explained in this Toronto Star article by the great labour reporter Sara Mojtehedzadeh.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Mr. Flores by Parkdale Community Legal Services. It alleges that the employer’s actions violated Section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which prohibits reprisals against an employee who raises concerns about workplace safety. Flores claims he was terminated either because he raised concerns at an employee meeting with management or because the company believed he was one of several employees who had complained publicly about working conditions.

One way to explain what happened to Mr. Flores is that he was terminated for raising a collective concern about working conditions on behalf of himself and coworkers and therefore he was terminated for engaging in concerted activities at work. An interesting question that I have been talking about for years is whether Ontario law protects employees from reprisals for doing just that. In this case, the employee was raising a concern about an issue covered by the OHSA and so he can access the anti-reprisals section in that legislation. However, employees often raise concerns about matters that are not safety related, such as pay, hours of work and scheduling, among other topics.

Does Ontario law prohibit an employer from terminating an employee who speaks up on behalf of coworkers?

The twist here is that Mr. Flores is an agricultural worker and successive Liberal and Conservative Ontario governments have clearly demonstrated that they have little patience for agricultural workers who dare to act collectively. The same is true of Liberal and Conservative federal governments, who have created a system of temporary seasonal workers that ensures those foreign workers stay in line and not cause their Canadian employers grief. For example, temporary agricultural workers have no labour mobility and are entirely dependent on one employer for their right to work in Canada, a feature of our legal model that discourages the workers from complaining, let alone mobilizing to act collectively. These governments want a passive and docile agricultural workforce.

In Ontario, agricultural workers are excluded from the Labour Relations Act and are instead covered by a watered down version of freedom of association found in the Agricultural Employees Protection Act. Neither the OLRA or the AEPA obviously apply here, however. In contrast to the American National Labor Relation Act, which protects (in s. 7) a broad right of employees to engage in “concerted activities for mutual aid and protection”, including a right to protest dangerous working conditions by striking, the OLRA protects only a right to form or join a “trade union” and to engage in “trade union activities”. As far as I know, there is no “trade union” involved in Mr. Flores’ story.

The AEPA protects a right to “assemble” and to form, join, and engage in the lawful activities of an “employees’ association”. The AEPA defines an “employees’ association” as “an association of employees formed for the purposes of acting in concert.” Here we see the deliberate importation of the American language of “concerted activity”. There is decent argument that by terminating Mr. Flores for raising concerns about working conditions on behalf of his seasonal agricultural co-workers, Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers (the employer) violated section 8, 9, or 10 (the unfair labour practice provisions) of the AEPA. Such a finding would trigger a broad remedial power under the legislation that permits the Tribunal to determine “what if anything” the employer “shall do” to remedy the violation. I can imagine arguments for creative remedies.

Of course, a successful ULP complaint under either the LRA or the AEPA would require the applicable tribunal to adopt a broad, purposive interpretation of the statute that captures organic and sometimes spontaneous “concerted activity” by nonunion workers that has not formalized into an effort to form or join an “association” or “trade union”. If an unfair labour practice complaint were filed in a case such as this, involving termination of an employee for raising collective workplace concerns, the labour tribunal would be confronted directly with the question of the scope of our statutory protections for concerted worker action.

If that tribunal were to rule that our collective bargaining statutes provide no protection at all for workers fired for raising collective workplace concerns unless they act through the vehicle of a formal “association” or “trade union”, it would expose a glaring hole in Canada’s model of freedom of association. I wonder whether the absence of any protections from employer reprisals for exercising collective voice about working conditions amounts to a substantial interference in the right to collective bargaining and to strike, which is now guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will be interested to see how a tribunal deals with an argument like this in the test case that I anticipate will come along in the near future.

I explore these arguments in a new paper published in the University of Toronto Law Journal called “David Beatty’s Redemption (And Other Thoughts on the Future of Labour Law)”.

David Doorey, “Do Ontario’s Collective Bargaining Laws Protect Migrant Worker Dismissed for Raising Collective Workplace Concerns?” (September 15 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=13005

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
Disappointing Labour Law Reforms and What Unions Hold in Their Own Hands
next post
Athabasca University Threatens to Exploit Peculiar Alberta Labour Law to Weaken Unions

You may also like

Would Rioting at Canada’s Parliament Building Be Grounds...

January 8, 2021

What is a Minority Union?

January 4, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

David Doorey on Jacobin: “Collective Bargaining Needs a...

December 16, 2020

Arbitrator: Employees Must Get Swabbed for COVID

December 16, 2020

“Autonomous Worker” Regulation

December 1, 2020

Reflecting on the Use of Neutrality Agreements in...

November 27, 2020

Video: Prof. David Doorey and Lawyer Ryan White...

November 26, 2020

Webinar Video: The Future of Labor Law, with...

November 17, 2020

What Could Biden’s Labor Secretary Do?

November 12, 2020

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 208 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
13 Jan

New Post: @TheLawofWork asks:

"Is '60 the New 50' in Assessing Length of Reasonable Notice in Wrongful Dismissal Cases?

http://lawofwork.ca/60new50/

#WrongfulDismissal #EmpLaw #LawofWork

Reply on Twitter 1349390367511207939Retweet on Twitter 1349390367511207939Like on Twitter 1349390367511207939Twitter 1349390367511207939
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
8 Jan

Try this again with a working link this time:

New: A fun one to open a new term of Employment Law, by @TheLawofWork:

"Would Rioting at Canada's Parliament Building Be Grounds for Dismissal Without Notice?"

http://lawofwork.ca/?p=13203

Reply on Twitter 1347578258100006914Retweet on Twitter 13475782581000069142Like on Twitter 13475782581000069142Twitter 1347578258100006914
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
4 Jan

Some thoughts on how Canadian labor law would deal with Google employees who joined @AlphabetWorkers (or something like it) in Canada. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1346114537351766017

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

First post of 2021 looks at a story in the @nytimes today about a new minority union at @Google. Prof. David Doorey (@TheLawofWork) asks:

"What is a Minority Union?"

http://lawofwork.ca

Reply on Twitter 1346215770561392641Retweet on Twitter 13462157705613926413Like on Twitter 13462157705613926414Twitter 1346215770561392641
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
  • 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.