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

Roy Adams on the Fraser Case and the Recent ILO Decision Finding Against the Province of Ontario

by David Doorey November 25, 2010
written by David Doorey November 25, 2010

November 10, 2010

This is the second “Guest Blog” by Professor Emeritus (McMaster) Roy Adams on the Fraser v. Ontario decision (here is his first).  This one considers the  just released decision of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association dealing with the same facts and issues raised in the Fraser case. I noted that decision yesterday.

Here is Roy’s take on the ILO decision and its relevance to the pending SCC decision in Fraser v. Ontario.

On the ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association’s decision with regard to Agricultural Workers in Ontario

With regard to Canadian labour relations the most important as yet unsettled court case is undoubtedly Fraser v. Ontario which has to do with the bargaining rights of agricultural workers in Ontario.

In response to a 2001 Supreme Court decision (Dunmore), the Ontario government introduced the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) purportedly to protect the freedom of association rights of farmworkers. Because it provided for neither mandatory bargaining, nor the right to strike (or any alternative dispute resolution procedure such as arbitration) the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) went back to court. That case eventually found its way to the Supreme Court who heard arguments regarding the situation in December 2009 but has not yet issued its decision (for more detail see David Doorey’s The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Workplace Law: A Guide for Beginners)

In March of 2009 the UFCW also filed a complaint with the International Labour Organization’s Committee of Freedom of Association. As a member of the ILO, Canada is bound by that organization’s constitution including its Freedom of Association principles.  Those who feel that those principles are not being respected may file a complaint with the CFA.

Although the Ontario government asked the CFA to postpone its decision until after the Supreme Court issued its own, the CFA said it could wait no longer and thus dealt with the issue in its November meeting. In recent decisions the Canadian Supreme Court has found ILO jurisprudence to be a persuasive interpretative source. It has also stated that Canadian workers should be able to depend on international human rights documents (including the decisions of their interpretative bodies presumably). For both of those reasons, CFA decisions command more attention than they have historically.

Should the Supreme Court continue to find the jurisprudence of the CFA persuasive, it will – subsequent to this CFA decision – do precisely what I argued in an earlier blog that it should do (see “On the Impending Supreme Court decision in Fraser v. Ontario)” posted both on David Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog on April 12, 2010 and in revised form here (14 June 2010). It will reject the arguments of both the UFCW who wanted it to uphold an Ontario Appeals Court decision and those of the Ontario government who wanted it to uphold the legality of the AEPA.

Let’s deal with the government’s position first. The basic argument of the Provincial Government is that its constitutional responsibility is to refrain from interfering with the formation of collective bargaining relationships. It insists that it has no duty to foster such relationships. That position, the CFA made clear in its agricultural workers decision, is not consistent with international human rights principles. Under international law it is the responsibility of governments to “encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.” (CFA Case 2704)

In Dunmore the Canadian Supreme Court, after an historical review of agricultural labour relations, concluded that farmworkers had no real chance of exercising their constitutional rights without government assistance. In BC Health the Court stated that “The Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified.” The ILO constitution is an international treaty and with respect to freedom of association an international human rights document. If the SCC remains true to the standards it enunciated in Dunmore and BC Health it must reject Ontario’s laissez faire argument. Ontario must effectively protect the rights of agricultural workers to bargain collectively. The AEPA is not getting that done. Instead, as the CFA noted: “neither the Government nor the complainant have referred to any successfully negotiated agreement since the Act’s adoption in 2002…”

Now for the union’s position. The UFCW would have the SCC endorse the decision of the Ontario Appeals Court. The problem (as I argued in my previous blog article and in an article published in Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal entitled “Fraser v. Ontario and International Human Rights”), is that the Appeals Court decision is offensive to international human rights standards. Chief Justice Winkler’s decision requires the Ontario government to introduce a “majoritarian exclusivity” regime that would “eradicate” the possibility of non-majority union representation. In its decision the CFA concedes that “Appropriate machinery can be adapted to national circumstances” but only if “the principles reflected above are fully respected.” One of those principles is the “right of representative organizations to negotiate, whether these organizations are registered or not.” In its Ontario farmworker decision the CFA did not elaborate the definition of “representative organizations” but the meaning of that term is to be found in the CFA’s digest of decisions.

Here are the key principles included in that digest.
1. Under Canadian labour statutes a union must acquire majority support in an appropriate bargaining unit in order to gain government backing for union recognition. The ILO recognizes the legitimacy of that procedure for the designation of an exclusive bargaining agent. But the existence of such a procedure must not deny workers’ alternative forms of union recognition where there is no exclusive agent. Here is the language from one of the CFA’s decisions: “With regard to a provision that stipulates that a collective agreement maybe negotiated only by a trade union representing an absolute majority of the workers in an enterprise, the Committee considered that the provision does not promote collective bargaining. . .” (CFA Digest of Decisions, 2006, para. 978).

2. Under ILO principles unions may establish representivity (and have access to relevant machinery requiring recognition to bargain collectively) even if they regroup substantially less than 50% of the relevant workers.   Although the low end is somewhat ambiguous, it is quite clear that any government that requires unions to demonstrate 50+% support as the sole means of acquiring recognition does not fulfil its duty to promote collective bargaining. More CFA language: “with regard to a provision that stipulates that a collective agreement may be negotiated only by a trade union representing an absolute majority of the workers in an enterprise, the Committee considered that the provision does not promote collective bargaining. . .” (CFA Case 2303)

3. Even if the union represents only a handful of workers in a situation where there is no exclusive bargaining agent, it should be recognized (and machinery should be in place to promote such recognition) at least for its members only. The CFA again: “if there is no union covering more than 50 per cent of the workers in a unit, collective bargaining rights should nevertheless be granted to the unions in this unit, at least on behalf of their own members.” (also from Case 2303).

What does all this mean for Canadian labour relations?
First, if the Canadian Supreme Court remains true to the standards it set out for itself in recent decisions it will require Ontario, at a minimum, to effectively protect the ability of farmworkers to bargain collectively. There are two obvious ways that Ontario might respond. First, the province could simply put farmworkers back under the general provincial Labour Relations Act. It if does so, the representivity issue will remain unsettled. Second, it might revise the AEPA (which does not require that a workers’ organization have 50% support to make representations to an employer) to oblige employers to bargain collectively even with nonmajority unions. The repercussions of its doing so could be interesting.

In either event one of the issues raised by this case will not be settled. The CFA made no mention of the right to strike and, at its December 2009 hearing, it was clear that some of the SCC justices were reluctant to get into that issue at this point. Ontario could give farmworkers a right to strike and thus take the specifics of this case out of the court system, but probably won’t. Under either a revised AEPA or the LRA, the government will probably require that impasses in agriculture be settled by reference to binding arbitration. A committee in the Bob Rae era recommended that form of dispute resolution and the UFCW has declared itself willing to accept such a scheme. Since arbitration will satisfy organized labour (and likely both the province and agricultural employers) further court proceedings will be unlikely. But if the issue does somehow find its way back to the SCC, the Court will have a difficult decision. Arbitration of agricultural industry impasses does not comply with international standards (see my article in Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal) but the SCC might find it to be justifiable nevertheless. And so the right to strike will still be up in the air.

The brief history of the case is this: when Ontario introduced its general collective bargaining law after World War II it excluded agricultural workers. In the early 1990s Ontario’s Bob Rae government brought them under the law but the subsequent Conservative government of Mike Harris kicked them out again. The United Food and Agricultural workers took the case to court and in the 2001 Dunmore decision, won. The reluctant Conservatives introduced the Agricultural Employees Protection Act that protected the right of agricultural workers to form associations and to make representations to their employer but did not require collective bargaining and did not provide for the right to strike. The UFCW went back to court, lost at the first level but “won” at the appeal level in 2008 subsequent to the Supreme Court’s constitutionalization of collective bargaining in its 2007 BC Health Services Case.

I put “won” in parentheses because what it won is problematic from both a constitutional and international human rights law perspective. The appeal court ordered Ontario to introduce a “majoritarian exclusivity” regime similar to that available to workers under the general labour relations statute in which union recognition and the establishment of collective bargaining is contingent on the union demonstrating majority support in an appropriate bargaining unit. In practice this legal regime makes highly improbable the formation of bargaining relationships outside of that format but the AEPA left open the possibility of non-majority union representation and even for the appearance of more than one union being formed at a single workplace. Chief Justice Winkler ordered to Ontario government to “eradicate” that possibility.  The Ontario government appealed the Appeal’s Courts decision but the Supreme Court has not yet handed down a decision.

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
Russo v. Kerr Bros.: What Happens When an Employee Who is Constructively Dismissed Keeps Working?
next post
Can City of Toronto Fine Private Garbage Collectors Whose Employees' Strike

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·
6h

@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·
7h

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·
8h

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.