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

Doorey on Canada AM and CBC on Toronto Strike

by David Doorey July 14, 2009
written by David Doorey July 14, 2009

I did a quick bit on Canada AM about the ongoing strike in the City of Toronto.  You can watch it here   I was also interviewed by CBC Radio yesterday and parts of that interview were aired on this morning news.  Here’s the written story that accompanies that audio piece.
What both interviewers were interested in was what could happen next, and was it still likely that interest arbitration could be the endgame.  As I have noted before, interest arbitration, the process in which issues in dispute are resolved by a neutral arbitrator, can come about in two ways:  (1) by agreement of the parties to refer the issues to arbitration and end the dispute; or (2) through ‘back to work’ legislation passed by the provincial government.  
Premier McGuinty has expressed no interest (yet) in passing legislation, and David Miller has been clear from the outset of the strike that the City does not want an arbitrated solution for fear of the potential costs of the award.  In 2002, I believe the arbitrator awarded 3% over three years, which the City thought was too high.   Thus, it appears that an arbitrated end to the strike is unlikely at present.  But things could change.  If the recent renewed energy at the bargaining table does not resolve the dispute in the next few days, it is possible that the union and/or the employer may resort to different tactics.  For example, the employer could put its offer to the workers in the form of a ‘final offer vote’, a process in the Labour Relations Act that permits the employer one opportunity to have its best offer put to a vote of the employees.  You may recall my earlier posts this year describing how both OC Transpo in Ottawa and York University tried this tactic, and in both cases, the workers rejected the employer’s offer.  After that, both disputes ended up in arbitration (by agreement in Ottawa and legislation in the York strike).
As I noted in the CBC piece, there are risks to the employer in trying the final offer vote.  It usually harms the relationship between the bargaining committees because unions perceive it as the employer trying to undermine the workers’ confidence in the union’s leadership.  And when the employees reject the offer, it can empower and raise the employees’ expectations that the employer will come back with more.   
The union also has some options.  One that I have noted before is that they could simply take the position that they are prepared to end the strike immediately and refer the dispute to arbitration.  There are several benefits to the union in taking that route.  Firstly, it would put the employer and David Miller on the defensive since it would now be the City that is prolonging the strike by its refusal to agree to the union’s offer to arbitrate.  And since there is always a strong possibility that the dispute will end up at arbitration anyways if it goes long enough (through legislation), Miller could take the blame for unnecessarily extended an unpopular dispute.  Moreover, there are potential benefits to the union here in an arbitrated solution.  While nothing is certain at arbitration, so there is definitely some risk to the union as well as the employer, interest arbitration is a process that is usually rather conservative.  Arbitrators don’t like awarding a completely novel term or gutting a long-standing benefit that the union has fought hard to preserve.  This could mean that the banked sick day benefit that has attracted so much media attention could very well survive an interest arbitration.  The union would be unlikely to get all it wants in other areas, like wages, but you have to question whether it will do so by continuing the strike indefinitely too.   The employer is offering between 1 and 3%  over 4 years, and the union is proposing about 3% each year.  There is room for an agreement there and an arbitrator would likely end up somewhere in the middle.
Unions never like to relinquish the right to strike, and for good reason, but it is not at all uncommon for public sector unions to propose arbitration to end a strike.  In fact, CUPE has done just this in the ongoing strike in Windsor.  
Do any of you have opinions on whether CUPE should propose interest arbitration at this point in the strike?

0 comment
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
See you later in July…
next post
Now THAT'S a Labour Protest!

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 ·
50m

Put together a quick blog post on a subject we've been discussing on Twitter.

"Is Memorial University Illegally Preventing Workers from Joining Picket Lines?"

What do you think?

https://lawofwork.ca/memorialpicketing/

#MemorialStrike #LabourLaw #FreedomofAssociation #CanLab

Reply on Twitter 1621277482719629312 Retweet on Twitter 1621277482719629312 Like on Twitter 1621277482719629312 Twitter 1621277482719629312
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

STOP MAKING SENSE!

Anthony Francis Dale @anthonyfdale

@TheLawofWork @MemorialU If there is a right to support other employees during non-working time, starting point must be the irrelevance of the fact that lunch is "paid". As Ontario Board said in 1982 Adams Mine case, employer otherwise could prevent exercise of a right by paying money.

Reply on Twitter 1621220629344133120 Retweet on Twitter 1621220629344133120 Like on Twitter 1621220629344133120 3 Twitter 1621220629344133120
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

Every year as the share of wealth going to workers declines and the share going to the top 2% increases, the Fraser Institute tell us that the problem is public sector workers aren’t paid as poorly as private sector workers.

It’s like a skit from SNL

Broadbent Institute @broadbent

Research from the @ccpa shows that wage disparity between public and private sectors aren't because the public sector pays too high, but because the private sector regularly underpays workers. The ON government's stable finances can easily afford to pay public sector workers. https://twitter.com/pressprogress/status/1620861682070462464

Reply on Twitter 1621219739677728770 Retweet on Twitter 1621219739677728770 14 Like on Twitter 1621219739677728770 40 Twitter 1621219739677728770
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.