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 Key in the Battle for Middle Earth!

by David Doorey October 29, 2010
written by David Doorey October 29, 2010

Is a worker who builds models of Middle Earth used in the production of new The Hobbit movie an “employee”, or an “independent contractor”?  How about the actor who plays Frodo, or Gollum, or the guy who makes those damn dragons fly?
That question has been at the centre of a political and legal storm in New Zealand.    A model maker went to court arguing that the movie gollumcompany had improperly labelled him an independent contractor in order to avoid paying him benefits available to employees.  He won.  That set off a huge and bloody war that even the Orcs would have loved.   MGM Films to threaten to pull the entire $670,000 million production out of New Zealand unless it could call all the workers independent contractors to avoid New Zealand labour laws.  Needless to say, the union representing the industry was not pleased.
To the rescue came the New Zealand government, as reported in this New Zealand Herald piece.  The government was already giving the company huge tax breaks ($34 million) and even paying part of their marketing costs.

Now the government has introduced a law that says that, if the film company calls you an “independent contractor”, then you are an “independent contractor”, dammit.  You can’t argue that in fact you are employee, according to the usual tests used to decide if someone is an employee or an independent contractor, and you can’t later claim any benefits available to “employees”.

The tests for determining this are very similar in New Zealand to ours in Canada.  The new law will apply to the entire film industry, essentially ensuring that workers in film production will not be entitled to benefits available to employees under employment laws.  The government is facing considerable criticism from worker groups and some opposition politicians for changing social protection laws at the request of a foreign corporation, but the government says its necessary to ensure the films are made in N.Z.
When American Companies Pressure Canadian Governments to Gut Employment Protections
There are examples of Canadian governments gauging labour laws at the request of American corporations.  One was the so-called Michelin Amendment in Nova Scotia in the late 1970s.  Michelin has two factories in the province, and there was strong support for unionization in one factory but not the other.  The Labour Board ruled that a bargaining unit of one factory was appropriate, opening the door for one of the Michelin factories to be unionized.  Michelin’s strong objection to being unionized, and the government’s fear that the company would pull out of the province, led the government to amend the law to say that, if a company with more than one facility in the province request, the appropriate unit will be all facilities in the province.  Puff, no union!
The other famous example happened right here in Ontario.  The Labour Board ruled  Wal-Mart threatened to close the store if the workers voted for a union, thereby destroying the possibility of holding a fair vote.  Therefore, the Board certified the union as a remedy for the Employer’s illegal threat.  This was the usual result when employers threaten workers.  But Wal-Mart cried foul, and complained to the Mike Harris Conservative government that it is not fair that employers should be punished for breaking the law and threatening employees by an order certifying the union.  So, Harris changed the law!   The new law said that, under no circumstances can the Labour Board certify a union as a remedy for the employer breaking the law.  Even if an employer lined up all the employees who support the union and mowed them down with a machine gun, all the Board could do is order a vote.  That law became known as the “Wal-Mart Bill”.  It has since been repealed by the Liberals (remedial certification is the law today in Ontario).
What do you think about governments gutting labour and employment law statutes in order to appease foreign corporations?  Is this justified?
[Thanks to one of my readers for pointing out this story, and for making the observation that it may only be a matter of time before film companies will be asking Canadian governments to introduce similar special rules here)
n

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
Note for My Osgoode LLM Students
next post
Professor Strike at Western?

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 338 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
Retweet on TwitterDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦 Retweeted
AnthonyForsyt10Anthony Forsyth@AnthonyForsyt10·
3h

If you missed my ⁦@RMIT⁩ lecture on Tuesday here is the text with a recording to follow … Legislating to Rebuild Worker Power: The Industrial Relations Reforms We Need from the Albanese Labor Government - Labour Law Down Under ⁦⁦@RMITCoBL⁩ https://labourlawdownunder.com.au/?p=1042

Reply on Twitter 1560086376703750144Retweet on Twitter 15600863767037501444Like on Twitter 156008637670375014412Twitter 1560086376703750144
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
7h

Old law school friend now works as a lawyer in the Office of the JAG. She is doing basic training, getting crazy fit. I wasn’t aware these lawyers must basically go thru basic training.

Imagine if there was a fitness test for labour and employment lawyers?

Reply on Twitter 1560028418015522817Retweet on Twitter 1560028418015522817Like on Twitter 15600284180155228178Twitter 1560028418015522817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
7h

You’ve seen this article?

Adrienne Cuoto, ‘Clothing Exotic Dancers with Collective Bargaining Rights’, 2006 38-1 Ottawa Law Review 37, 2006 CanLIIDocs 63, <https://canlii.ca/t/2913>

ryan white@ryandwhite12

One of my COVID projects has been working on a history of the Canadian Association of Burlesque Entertainers, the only case I am aware of in which dancers sought unionization in Canada - so I will be watching this carefully (it is rare and exciting) https://twitter.com/grimkim/status/1559995539999031297

Reply on Twitter 1560023264759615499Retweet on Twitter 15600232647596154991Like on Twitter 1560023264759615499Twitter 1560023264759615499
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
  • 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.