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 FreedomsCOVID-19Health CareInterest ArbitrationPublic SectorUnions and Collective Bargaining

Interest Arbitration in the Wake of Covid-19: Healthcare Workers in a Post-Pandemic World

by Fernando Reis April 16, 2020
written by Fernando Reis April 16, 2020

Written by Fernando Reis, Labour Relations Consultant

In Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan,the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recognized strike action as constitutionally protected under s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  However, many unionized workers do not have a right to strike.[1] In Saskatchewan, the SCC ruled that where the right to strike is suspended, workers must have access to a “meaningful alternative”[2]to the right to strike, typically some form of binding arbitration to resolve outstanding issues at the bargaining table.  

Covid-19 has exposed the need for substantial changes to the operation of long-term care facilities in Canada. Absent legislative reforms, these changes will need to be negotiated in unionized workplaces and where agreement cannot be reached and in the absence of a right to strike, it will fall to interest arbitrators to decide whether changes will be introduced that will better protect workers and those being cared for. However, the conservative nature of interest arbitration leaves it far from clear that new protective measures will be introduced. This is a concern.

Interest Arbitration

In Ontario, for example, many healthcare workers are covered by the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.  This statute sets out both the process of interest arbitration and the applicable criteria[3] a board of arbitration must consider when fashioning an award.  

The current crisis has revealed many failures in the LTC sector.  In Bobcaygeon Ontario, as of April 6, 2020, 26 residents had perished as a result of Covid-19.  Healthcare workers are dealing with an unprecedented surge in healthcare needs and have been exposed to a working environment replete with dangers without sufficient protections. It is reasonable to assume that, once the current crisis has abated, it cannot be “business as usual” for labour relations in the LTC sector. While boards of arbitration will continue to consider the relevant criteria, the principles of normative outcomes and demonstrated need will deserve enhanced attention.

            Normative Outcomes

While “Normative” is not explicitly listed as a criterion under HLDAA, the concept has developed through the interest arbitral jurisprudence.[4]  Essentially, a board of arbitration will typically award terms and conditions of employment that are well established within applicable comparators. Having said this, what may have been typical in the pre-pandemic world may no longer be typical in the post-Covid-19 world.

            Demonstrated Need

The principle of demonstrated need requires a consideration of whether a proposal from either the union or employer has merit based on evidence that something hasn’t been working within the collective agreement or with labour relations.[5] At present, the principle of demonstrated need takes on an added importance, especially as it relates to the health and safety of healthcare workers.[6]

Collective Bargaining in the Post-Covid19 

Interest arbitration must depart from what has ostensibly been a conservative process and embrace a broader more purposive approach to establish the new normative based on clear and compelling demonstrated needs.[7] In addition, changes to how services in the long-term care sector are delivered must also suffer profound alterations.  

Performance of the work of the bargaining unit is a fundamental issue at the bargaining table for unions. In United Steelworkers of America and Russelsteel Ltd., it was established that a union has the onus to negotiate restrictions to contracting out of bargaining unit work.[8] These restrictions typically range from an outright ban to restrictions that are only triggered when certain conditions are met.  With respect to the long-term care sector, it is not unusual to have outside contractors fill service gaps. In one nursing home in Kenora, Ontario where I led collective bargaining for UFCW Local 175 in 2018, the home contracted workers from as far away as Winnipeg in order to meet service requirements because of insufficient bargaining unit workers. However, the LTC sector in the post-pandemic world must recognize that this coming and going of contracted personnel must be addressed to reduce the chances of exposure to infectious agents. 

In addition, the personnel that work in an LTC facility must be regulated and their compensation appropriately addressed. Therefore, employers and unions in the LTC sector should consider the following:

  1. Eliminating or regulating contracted services
  2. Ensuring a dedicated component of workers
  3. Quarantine Pay and Danger Pay
  4. Valuing PT Workers

Eliminating or Regulating Contracted Services

Infections in LTC facilities are the result of the introduction of the virus by someone from the outside, a worker or visitor to the facility. The reliance by LTC operators on outside contracted services must be scrutinized. A complete ban on these services would ensure that people who do not regularly work at an LTC facility do not become transmitters of disease. If a complete ban is not feasible, then there should be some method of controlling workers from contracted services entering the facility.  Perhaps there could be a group of contracted workers that are assigned to a particular facility and that have been screened before the assignment.  These workers should also be prevented from working at more than one facility to further decrease the risk of transmission.

Dedicated Workers

Another proposal is to prevent workers from a particular bargaining unit from working at other LTC facilities.[9]  Again, this would reduce the chance of transmission of disease.[10]  

Quarantine Pay and Danger Pay

Should a similar situation arise to the one we now find ourselves in, there should be additional compensation for workers on the front line. If LTC workers are forced into isolation, they should receive compensation during the period of isolation. There must also be recognition of some form of danger pay. Prime Minster Trudeau said as much on April 6, 2020. These workers are putting their lives at risk.

Part-Time Workers

Finally, the interest arbitration system must recognize the value of part-time staff. Boards of arbitration have traditionally only considered full-time retention and recruitment issues even though the HLDAA does not limit the analysis to the full-time component of a bargaining unit. The HLDAAshould be applied in a manner that is broad and purposeful. Evidence of high turnover of part-time staff should suffice to award increases above normative. In addition, part-time workers must have enhanced benefits. These considerations would incentivize part-time workers not to leave an LTC facility and seek work at various facilities.

Workers and unions must demand an upheaval of both workplace regulation and labour relations in the LTC sector.  The evidence for banning or severely restricting contracting out is clear and compelling and must become a normative outcome.  Moreover, workers in the LTC sector need additional and different types of compensation. If employers refuse to entertain these demands, it will be left to boards of arbitration to impose terms in light of the ban on the right to strike in the LRC sector.  However, if boards of arbitration do not ascribe appropriate weight to unequivocal demonstrated needs then the words “meaningful alternative” to the right to strike will ring hollow and society will be doomed to repeat past errors.

Fernando Reis, “Interest Arbitration in the Wake of Covid-19: Healthcare Workers in a Post-Pandemic World” Canadian Law of Work Forum (April 16 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=12317


[1]For example, this is the case among police, paramedics and healthcare workers.

[2]Saskatchewan, supra note 2 at para 92.

[3]See section 9(1)(1.1) of the HLDAA.

[4]See, for example, Chartwell Oakville Retirement v Christian Labour Association of Canada, 2015 CanLII 32028 (ON LA).

[5]See, for example, Honeywell Limited v Unifor Local 636, 2016CanLII 17001 (ON LA).

[6]The issue of insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers has dominated headlines.  

[7]In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, the SCC ruled that benefits conferring statutes should be interpreted in a broad and purposive manner to ensure the intention of the legislature is fulfilled.

[8]United Steelworkers of America and Russelsteel Ltd., (1966) 17 L.A.C. 253 (Russelsteel) 

[9]On April 15, 2020, Premier Doug Ford announced that LTC workers would not be permitted to work at more than one facilityfor a period of 14 days in an effort to reduce Covid-19 disease transmission.  

[10]Of course, there is the obvious downside of the financial impact on workers in the LTC sector if such a proposal were to be adopted.

0 comment
1
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Fernando Reis

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Wrongful Dismissal, the ‘Bardal’ Factors and COVID19
next post
How the Canada Emergency Response Benefit is Failing Low-Income Precarious Workers, and How it Can be Fixed

You may also like

The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in...

February 19, 2021

Real Pleadings: Has Uber Created a New Service...

February 15, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Prof. Doorey’s Updated Beginners’ Guide to the Charter...

February 1, 2021

Calling the Shots: Is Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination a...

January 29, 2021

Does COVID Justify Longer Periods of Reasonable Notice?

January 25, 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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@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 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

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·
24 Feb

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.