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

Is the NBA Lockout Illegal in Canada?

by David Doorey July 1, 2011
written by David Doorey July 1, 2011

HAPPY CANADA DAY!  The NBA may find Canada to be a big pain in the ass.
Here’s an issue that occasionally arises in the pro sports leagues that have Canadian franchises.  Like the NBA.  Today, the NBA “locked out” its players. That lockout is no doubt legal under American labor law.  But the Toronto Raptors franchise is governed not by American labor law, but by Ontario labour law.  The rules are difficult.   Is the lockout of the Toronto Raptors legal under Ontario law?
The pro leagues have not fared well on that issue so far.  Consider this case from 1995 involving the lockout of NBA referees–the NBA loves the lockout!.  This was before the Raptors’ had a franchise, but the NBA played regular exhibition games in Toronto.   The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the NBA had not complied with Ontario laws governing when a lockout is lawful.  Since the NBA was employing workers in Ontario during the exhibition games, it was not entitled to lockout them out without first complying with Ontario laws.  Therefore, the lockout of referees, although legal in America, was illegal in Ontario.  A similar ruling was made in regards to the lockout of major league umpires also in 1995–the lockout was legal in the U.S., but umpires could not be locked out for Blue Jay home games.
The key section under Ontario law is 74 of the Labour Relations Act:

74.       (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,
(a)        seven days have elapsed after the day the Minister has released or is deemed pursuant to subsection 115 (3) to have released to the parties the report of a conciliation board or mediator; or
(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.

I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that these conditions have not been satisfied by the NBA in this case.  Has the NBA met with Ontario conciliators, and received a “no board” (what we call the section 74(2)(a) report), and then waited 14 days?  If not, then the NBA lockout is probably unlawful in Toronto.
The Ontario Board has discretion in terms of remedies for unlawful lockouts (in section 101).  In the earlier umpire case, Major League Baseball argued that the Board should not do anything about the violation.  The Board responded:

17.       In any event, we do not think that we should decline to apply Ontario law simply because it is novel to do so, or because there may be collective bargaining consequences, or because one side may reap a temporary tactical advantage – any more than we would be inclined to exempt a local branch plant from the application of Ontario law where the same arguments might be made. It may be that the inability to strike, lock-out, or use replacement umpires in Ontario at this time has an effect on the ongoing collective bargaining, or introduces a new “wrinkle” into the collective bargaining process. However, we see no obvious reason why this should be an impediment to settlement, nor should it create an obstacle that cannot be overcome by bargaining in good faith – an obligation that the parties have in all jurisdictions. Certainly it is no reason not to apply the law at all.

In both the umpires, the OLRB allowed a replacement ref for one game, but then made the decision active for the next Blue Jays home series in order to give the parties time to consider the impact of the decision.
In the current NBA lockout, as I understand it, players don’t usually get paid until the fall.   If true, then the Raptors aren’t losing any pay through the summer as a result of the lockout.   In theory, once the Raptors’ lose a pay cheque due to an unlawful lockout, they could seek a remedy from the OLRB, were the Board to rule that the Raptors cannot be locked out.
What do you labour lawyers/sports lawyers think?  Do you think the union will bring an unlawful lockout application to the OLRB?  If so, what do you think the OLRB would do about it?

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
Q&A: Should we Replace Common Law "Reasonable Notice" with Fixed (Higher) Statutory Notice of Termination?
next post
Linda McQuaig References Doorey in Piece on Royals and Unions

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 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.