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 Test to Unionize Tougher Than to Leave Europe?

by David Doorey June 28, 2016
written by David Doorey June 28, 2016

June 28 2016

Crazy week in Britain, huh.
Among the most amazing things about the Brexit result, in my mind, is that such a momentous decision was left to be decided by a simply majority of ballots cast.  Approximately 52% of ballots (17,410,742) were cast in favour of Leaving the EU.  About 72% of eligible Britons (46,501,241) cast ballots.  That means that just over 37% of Britons voted to leave the European Union, and their choice rules the day.
Brexit Outcomes
Of course, our democratic process also operates on the basis of majority of ballots cast.  If a political party was required to win actual majority support in order to govern, no party would ever win.   Stephen Harper’s Conservative government won a majority government in 2011 even though less than a quarter of Canadians (24%) voted Conservative.
However, the Brexit vote was different.  Someone needs to win a political election.  We need a government.  The question put to a vote in Brexit was whether to change the long-standing status quo.  Remain could have been treated as the default model, and the law could have required that Leave obtain greater than a simple majority of ballots cast in order to overrule the default political system in effect since 1973 and throw the UK into an era of uncertainty if not chaos.  A petition circulating in Britain calls for a rule that the Brexit vote be annulled if less than 60% of votes are cast for Leave or Remain based on a turnout of less than 75%.  But it’s a little late for that, even though nearly 4 million people have signed on.
Unions Must Meet a Higher Threshold to Win the  Legal Right to Represent Workers 
The Brexit vote parallels an employee vote to move from the non-union, Common Law Regime to the unionized Collective Bargaining Regime under the Wagner model of majoritism and exclusivity that governs unionization in Canada and the U.S.   In a unionization contest, nonunion employes are asked whether they wish to alter the default, non-union model by choosing instead to be represented by a union.
Nowhere in North America is the unionization contest decided by a one-step, simply majority of ballots cast as was the case in Brexit.  In the U.S., a union must first obtain union membership cards representing at least 40% of eligible employees (bargaining unit employees), and then the union must also win a ballot as a second step.   This is known as the mandatory ballot model.
In Canada, we use two models for testing whether employees want to move from the default nonunion model to the union model. Most jurisdictions now use the American-style mandatory ballot model.   In order to get a vote, the union must first present evidence showing that some percentage of employees are union members (or in Alberta, that they have signed a union authorization card indicating they want the union to represent them).   That threshold level varies from 35% (in Quebec) to 45% (in B.C. and Saskatchewan).  The most common threshold is 40% in order to get a vote.  Usually, if the union gets a vote, then it must only win a majority of ballots cast.  However,  in Newfoundland & Labrador, the union must obtain votes on behalf a majority of eligible voters, or a majority of ballots cast but only if 70% of more of eligible employees vote.
Note that it is possible in all jurisdictions that use a mandatory ballot model for a union to win certification without having obtained the support of an actual majority of eligible voters.  For example, if there are 100 eligible voters, the union can obtain a vote by submitting 40 (or in some jurisdictions, 45 membership cards).  If a vote is then held, and only 80 employees vote, the union would win certification by obtaining 41 votes (or 50% plus 1  of the voting constituency).  However, even then, the union still needed to obtain substantial employee support in order to get a vote in the first place.  Neither Leave, Remain, or Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (or any Canadian political party for that matter) obtained the support of 40 percent of all eligible voters.
In Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and P.E.I. (and the construction sector in Ontario), a union can win certification without a vote under the second model for testing employee wishes known as the Card Check Model.  Under this model, a union proves majority support by collecting union membership cards on behalf of a majority of the entire constituency of employees.  In Manitoba (for now), the union needs to submit membership cards on behalf of at least 65%.  In New Brunswick it is 60% or more.  In Quebec and P.E.I., the union needs only a majority of the bargaining unit (more than 50%).   Note that in the Card Check Model, the union must obtain the support of an actual majority of employees eligible to participate in the decision about unionization.
Opponents of collective bargaining argue against the Card Check Model on the basis that it is ‘undemocratic’.  I have never found this argument persuasive. If 60 or 70 out of 100 employees sign a union membership card indicating their desire for collective bargaining, then it is hard for me to see how certifying a union based on that evidence is less democratic than a ballot result in which a union wins by obtaining 51% of ballots cast.  I haven’t done or read a study of this, but in my own experience as a lawyer doing loads of union certification applications in both B.C. and Ontario, if a union applies with membership cards representing more than 65% of employees, they always win the certification vote, unless the employer breaks the law by threatening harm if the union wins.  Holding a vote when a union submits such strong evidence of employee support is a waste of taxpayer money and scarce labour board resources.
Remember that all a union wins by obtaining certification is an opportunity to sit down with an employer to try to bargain a first collective agreement that a majority of employees will vote for, because they think it is preferable to the nonunion employment contract that presently governs their employment relationship.  If the union can’t bargain such an agreement, then it will not last very long.   That’s why my preference would be for a Card Check Model when the union submits membership evidence on behalf of at least 65% of bargaining unit members.   In that case, the government should just certify the union, and tell the parties to get on with collective bargaining.
It’s interesting that Canadian unions are required to demonstrate a higher level of employee support in order to obtain a licence to bargain on behalf of employees than the Leave campaign needed to show in order to pull Britain from the European Union.
Question for Discussion
1.     Is the Card Check Model of union certification ‘undemocratic’, as Mandatory Ballot proponents argue?
2.    Studies show that union success rates in applications for certification fall by as much as 19% when a government switches from a Card Check Model to a Mandatory Ballot Model.  What do you think explains this outcome?
 
Cross-Reference to The Law of Work book
The models used to test employee wishes about whether to unionize will be discussed at length in a chapter in the forthcoming Part IV of the book that explores the Collective Bargaining Regime.
 
 
 

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
Collective Bargaining vs. Collective Voice in Labour Law: A Primer
next post
Nova Scotia Amends Labour Standards Code to Block Hockey Class Action Lawsuit

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.