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

How is the Lockout of MLS Referees, Use of Replacement Refs Lawful in Canadian Cities?

by David Doorey March 12, 2014
written by David Doorey March 12, 2014

Have to admit it, I don’t really follow Major League Soccer all that closely.  I played lacrosse growing up, and I didn’t have time for soccer. I did live directly between Arsenal and Tottenham though when I was doing my LLM in London and picked up a taste for the excitement of the Premier League.  Arsenal won everything that year.  Go Gunners!  I digress. I didn’t notice that the MLS referees had been locked out to start the 2014 season until I received a note from an Oregon labour lawyer asking me how the league could use replacement refs last weekend for the Vancouver Whitecaps game.  My response was, huh?
It’s a good question, for two reasons.  Firstly, employers are restricted from using replacement workers during a lockout in British

Was Use of Replacement Refs in Vancouver Illegal?

Was Use of Replacement Refs in Vancouver Illegal?


Columbia.  Secondly, in all cases where American-based professional leagues lockout players or officials at Canadian venues, the question arises whether they have first complied with Canadian labour laws governing lockouts.  So, for example, the NBA lock out its referees in 1995 was found to be illegal in regards to games in Toronto, because the preconditions for a legal lockout in Ontario had not been satisfied. Here is the NBA referees decision.
Ontario law imposes a series of conditions before an employer can lockout employees.  These include a requirement to request and then exhaust mandatory government conciliation, and then to wait a period of time from the issuance of a letter from the Minister of Labour advising that no more conciliation will be required (a ‘no board report’).  Here is the key language from the Ontario legislation (section 79):

79.       (2) Where no collective agreement is in operation, no employee shall strike and no employer shall lock out an employee until the Minister has appointed a conciliation officer or a mediator under this Act and… (b)  fourteen days have elapsed after the day the Minister has released or is deemed pursuant to subsection 115 (3) to have released to the parties a notice that he or she does not consider it advisable to appoint a conciliation board.

The same issue arises in relation to Vancouver and Montreal games.  Each province has rules about when a lockout it legal.  The fact that a lockout might be lawful under American law doesn’t mean we ignore Canadian laws when the employees are working in Canada.
In British Columbia, the law also prohibits employers from hiring replacement workers to do the work of locked out workers.  That prohibition appears in Section 68 of the Labour Relations Code.  For an example of how this section works, check out this decision, in which a sports organization was found to have illegally used replacement workers during a lockout.   This raises the obvious question: How was it lawful for replacement referees to be used in last weekend’s Vancouver Whitecaps game in Vancouver?
As far as I can tell, the referees union (Professional Soccer Referees Association) bargains with an entity called PRO (Professional Referee Organization), and not the MLS.  This is a twist from the normal arrangement in pro sports, where the refs are employed by the league itself.  I’m not sure about all the details, but it appears that PRO assigns the referees to games.  I assume (but don’t know for sure) that MLS has a contract with PRO to supply referees.  If anyone knows more about this, let me know.
Would the fact that the referees are employed by a third party and not the MLS make a difference to the legal treatment of a lockout in Canada?  Does this twist get PRO around the prohibition on using replacement workers in British Columbia?  Could PRO argue that it is not really locking out the refs in Canada, it is just not assigning them to games in Canadian cities?  What do you think?
I am a little surprised that the Union has not brought illegal lockout applications to the Canadian labour boards (unless they have, and I’m just unaware).  Or perhaps the Union knows the Canadian law, but just doesn’t see any benefit in stopping replacement referees in only three cities.  Or, could it be that the employer actually did go through conciliation in the Canadian provinces?  That wouldn’t explain the use of replacement workers in B.C., but it would at least make the lockout itself unlawful in Canadian provinces.
If anyone has any greater knowledge of the situation than do I, please pass it along.  We will keep out eye on this situation.
Issues for Discussion
If the Union could obtain rulings from the three Canadian labour boards banning the lockout of referees in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, do you think that would be a useful strategy in their dispute with the employer? 
What do you think the remedy would be if the lockout is ruled unlawful in those cities?
 
 

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
At last, the Human Rights Tribunal Gets it Right! Employers Can't Pay Disabled Workers $1 per Hour
next post
Why Nonunion Workers Have a Right to Strike in US, But Not in Canada

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 ·
11h

I can’t believe that Almost Famous came out 23 years ago.

Time is flying by.

Reply on Twitter 1622776388179705859 Retweet on Twitter 1622776388179705859 3 Like on Twitter 1622776388179705859 14 Twitter 1622776388179705859
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

I had an LLM student who had a part-time job phantom writing labor arbitration decisions based on arbitrator’s notes and instructions.

Like law clerks do for judges (except parties don’t know about the phantom arb writer).

Is using a machine different? Interesting debate.

Valerio De Stefano @valeriodeste

The crucial part starts on p. 5, where the Court reports the answers to the legal questions they posed to ChatGPT. Then, at the end of p. 6, the Court adopts the arguments given in these answers as grounds for its decision.

Reply on Twitter 1622759377944952834 Retweet on Twitter 1622759377944952834 5 Like on Twitter 1622759377944952834 8 Twitter 1622759377944952834
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
13h

Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977, BC in 1993, & Ontario 1993-95.

Hysterical claims that these laws cause job losses & loss of investment aren't supported by evidence. Businesses just don't like them.

Short 🧵

1/

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

We’re banning replacement workers, as we said on Oct. 19th.

We’re working with unions and employers to get the balance right.

As agreed, government will introduce legislation by the end of this year.

Reply on Twitter 1622745098088861702 Retweet on Twitter 1622745098088861702 16 Like on Twitter 1622745098088861702 39 Twitter 1622745098088861702
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.