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

Doorey's Blog Causes Stir at TTC Strike Ban Committee Meetings

by David Doorey March 11, 2011
written by David Doorey March 11, 2011

Bob Kinnear, President of the ATU, made the case against the Liberals’ TTC strike ban yesterday at the Committee meetings on Bill 150.  My blog entry called ” A TTC Strike Costs Toronto $50 Million a Day, and other myths…” was front and centre in his submissions.
Here are Kinnear’s submissions.
Kinnear emphasized my point that the $50 million figure is hardly a “fact”, though the politicians and media are treating it as such, and the government was citing it as reason why it needs to ban TTC strikes.  None of the people citing this magical figure has a clue how it was calculated.  I asked the City for the “study” that is the source of the magical number weeks ago, and have been getting the runaround, and now the silent treatment.  Either they can’t find it, or they don’t want to give it to me.   The government’s spokesperson told the media that the Liberals just accepted the number that Rob Ford gave them, as noted in this Globe and Mail piece:

“These are not our numbers. We never said that,” he said. “That’s what the city told us.”

None of this was going to change the government’s mind, of course.  This law is a response to voters who have told McGuinty that they don’t want TTC strikes.  It was never about how much money a strike “costs the City”, so the Liberals should really just shut up about that.
I wonder if the government will include the magical mystical $50 million figure in its response to the complaint to the International Labour Organization that will be filed shortly after the law comes into effect.  That ILO complaint will, without doubt, result in a finding that Ontario has violated the TTC workers’ internationally recognized right to strike.  I’ll let you know if the $50 million number makes it all the way to Geneva.
If I were arguing against Bill 150 in a submission, here’s what I would add from a legal perspective.
First, I would note that TTC strikes are very rare, that transit workers around the democratic world have legal rights to strike, and that there is no crisis at stake here.  This is a politically created hot button issue, not a serious threat to public safety or even the economic climate of Ontario.
Then I would point out that although the Supreme Court of Canada has not yet ruled that there is a Constitutional right to strike, it has ruled that there is a Constitutional right to collective bargaining.  In doing so, the Court said  (in B.C. Health Services, Para. 79) that the Charter’s protection of Freedom of Association must provide “at least the level of protection” as afforded by ILO Convention 87.  Convention 87 has been interpreted to include a robust right to strike, subject only to limitations necessary to protect human health and safety.   Bus drivers obviously do not fall into that category.  Therefore, unless the SCC backtracks from its very clear statement in B.C. Health Services, we should anticipate the Court recognizing soon some limitation on a government’s right to ban strikes whenever it is politically expedient to do so.
The Supreme Court went further in B.C. Health Services.  It reminded governments that labour “policy itself should reflect Charter rights and values” (B.C. Health Services, para. 26).   One value enshrined in Charter jurisprudence is the notion that legislation, even when pursuing a pressing policy objective, should restrict rights as “little as possible” in order to achieve the government’s pressing objective.
What is the pressing objective of a transit ban? Good question.  I presume it would be to ensure that people can get to work without undue irritation and delay.   If that is it, then the government would argue that transit service is needed, at least during those hours when most people go to work and back.  No matter how you characterize the pressing need for transit, though, Bill 150 restricts transit workers’ rights WAY further than is necessary to achieve that objective.
For example, it restricts the right of a TTC worker who changes the garbage bags from striking.  It restricts all maintenance workers and mechanics from striking, even those who work in a depot fixing off-duty trains and buses.   How is changing the newspaper recycling bags at subway stations necessary to ensure Torontians can easily get to work (assuming that is a pressing policy objective)?
Is it necessary to save Toronto’s economy for trains and buses to run between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m.?   When I lived in London, England, tube drivers used to strike a certain times of the day, but operate at other times, and everyone knew what was coming.   The same thing has happened in Montreal.  London and Montreal have survived.

In short, absolutely no consideration has gone into exploring whether there is a way to restrict TTC strikes in a way that protects whatever pressing objective the government is relying on to justify this law, but that also does not completely eliminate the right of all TTC employees to exercise a right to strike.

Bill 150 takes the easy road of a complete ban on legal rights, without bothering to  engage in the sort of fine balancing of rights and pressing societal needs that the Charter was supposed to encourage.  Who knows, perhaps these sorts of arguments may make it before a Court in the not so distant future.
What do you think?
Should the Liberals pause and explore whether there is a more thoughtful way to balance the competing desire of Toronotians for TTC ?
Or is a complete ban on all strikes, by all TTC workers, at all times the only acceptable solution?

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
Don't Confuse Union Density with the Demand for Unionization
next post
Is it Age Discrimination to Propose that the Oldest Worker Take Early Retirement to Avoid Layoff of Younger Worker?

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·
10h

@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·
10h

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·
11h

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.