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

Labour Law Exam: Did City of Toronto Just Violate the Labour Relations Act?

by David Doorey March 19, 2012
written by David Doorey March 19, 2012

Here’s another practice question for labour law students gearing up for finals.
In this Toronto Star piece, Councillor Doug Holyday, who is Chair of the Employer’s Labour Relations Committee, and therefore speaks for the Employer, made the surprising comment to reporters that the union’s strike vote might be conducted improperly.  The union plans on holding its strike vote tomorrow.  Here is the quote from the paper in its entirety:

Holyday also suggested provincial officials, not the union executive, should tally the results of Tuesday’s strike vote.
“I think it’s really unfortunate that the vote to call a strike by their members is done in the way that it’s done — by the union executive who hold the election, count the votes and give the results.
“I think for such an important matter it should be done by the Ministry of Labour who should ascertain that half plus one, at least, of all the members of the union want the strike. I think in that case there probably wouldn’t even be a strike.”
Told that it sounds like he’s saying the union executive can’t be trusted to hold an honest vote, Holyday said: “I’m not saying that.
“I’m saying that it’s such an important matter that there should be a completely democratic, independently verified strike vote, and I think that if you talk to some of the people who work here you might find that, if there’s anybody that might question the findings, it might be some of our own employees.”

You tell me.  Can that quote be read any other way than as suggesting that if the government conducts the strike vote, the result will be  different than the actual strike vote taken by the union itself?  It does clearly suggest Holyday’s opinion that a strike vote taken by a union and not verified by the state is lacking in democracy in some manner.
So Holiday is saying that strike votes are so important that they should not be left to shady unions to conduct, and the state should conduct them.  [Funny enough, by the way, Holiday was one of 19 Councillors who voted against a motion a few months ago that argued that the decision to lockout City employees or to unilaterally amend their terms of employment was so important that the City’s elected Council should vote on it. Holiday’s position was that there was no need for Council to vote]
Ok, now consider this.  Section 70 of the Labour Relations Act says that an employer cannot interfere with the administration of the union that represents its employees.  Here is the language:

70. No employer … and no person acting on behalf of an employer … shall participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union or contribute financial or other support to a trade union, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive an employer of the employer’s freedom to express views so long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.

We know from case law that this section does not require an ‘intent’ to interfere with a union.  The labour board has said that the issue is whether the employer’s actions “have a significant impact” on the ability of a union to represent its members (recall International Wallcoverings, which we consider in Labour Law courses).  Do you think Holiday’s ‘intent’ is to plant a seed in the mind of employees that their union may be or might in the future act inappropriately?  Do you think that might be how employees interpret his comments?  If so, is that interfering with the administration of the union or the representation of the employees by the union?
What do you think?  Does this section prohibit an employer from suggesting that a union has somehow acted inappropriately in conducting internal union elections?
Does it cover employer comments that suggest impropriety by the union that represents its employees, and that could cause employees to question the honesty of their union representatives?

3 comments
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
Good Luck Craig Scott in Toronto-Danforth By-Election
next post
Can Employees Be Fired for Wearing an Orange Shirt to Work?

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

TheLawofWork Follow

@ ·
now

Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter Like on Twitter Twitter
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
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • 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
  • New Zealand
  • 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.