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

Langille on How the Protests in the Middle East Would Be Violations of Canadian Labour Law

by David Doorey February 21, 2011
written by David Doorey February 21, 2011

There is a timely and interesting discussion of the current political protests in Egypt and the Middle East in a post by Professor Brian Langille on the U of Toronto Law School blog.
This New York Times piece explains how labour actions were being used by protesters to aid the political movement pushing foran end to the dictatorships.  Brian is explaining how the political protests that have taken down dictatorships would be violations of Canadian labour law if happened here.  That is because any agreement by more than one employee to not report to work  is a strike under very restrictive strike laws in Canada, regardless of the reason for not reporting to work.
As Brian notes:

The result is anyone participating in events such as we admire in Egypt would be violating Canadian law. They could be legally orderedback to work by the labour relations board or a court, and subjected to real penalties if they disobeyed, whether they were members of a union or not….   The idea that Canadian law prohibits here, what is going on there, should give us at least pause and perhaps reason to become a little concerned. The truth is, our labour laws, properly interpreted, have and should have nothing to say about this issue.

Although many Canadians these day like to whine incessantly about how unionized workers are always striking, in fact, strikes are rare and Canada has one of the most restrictive rights to strike of all democratic countries.   A key motivation of Prime Minister Mackenzie King in the early 1940s when he introduced our modern labour law model (in the legislation called P.C. 1003)–still largely in place today–was to restrict strikes, which were becoming more frequent during the War years as workers enjoyed a rare moment of bargaining power owing to labour shortages.
There are two key points to understanding the restrictive strike regimes in Canada.  The first is that Canadian law hands employers a key benefit that employers in other countries must bargain to obtain–a ban on strikes during a collective agreement.  For example, Section 79 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act says this:

Where a collective agreement is in operation, no employee bound by the agreement shall strike and no employer bound by the agreement shall lock out such an employee.

In other countries, including the U.S.,  employers need to bargain a no strike clause into a collective agreement, if it values this restriction.   Here, the government gives that benefit to the employer as a statutory gift and refers all disputes arising a collective agreement to labour arbitration.  Canadian law also bans strikes by nonunion workers and many unionized workers who the goverment believes should have no right to strike, with the result that well over 2/3 of Canadians have no legal right to strike.  Even among unionized workers that do have a legal right to strike, that right is contigent upon first satisfying a series of legal hurdles, such as government conciliation, strike votes, and waiting periods.  The result is that the window in which a strike is lawful in Canada is extremely small relative to most other democratic nations, and under constant threat these days of becoming even smaller (see discussion of how the Ontario government is considering banning all strikes by transit workers). 
Secondly, the definition of a strike is extremely broad.  Look at the definition in the Ontario LRA:

“strike” includes a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding, or a slow-down or other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output

It includes a “work to rule”–complying with the terms of your contract with the aim of harming the employer’s economic goals, as I noted recently.  And, as noted above, it includes any agreement by more than one employee to not report to work. Period.  If three employees agree to call in sick on the same day, that’s a strike.  Brian uses the example of employees who don’t come to work so they go to a Blue Jay game.  That’s a strike.   It doesn’t matter why they called in sick.
This means that if a bunch of employees decide to skip work one day in order to attend a political protest challenging what they perceive to be abusive, repressive political actions by the state, they are violating labour laws.   There are lots of Canadian cases where this very thing has happened, including this case involving employees of General Motors found to have engaged in an illegal strike when they attended a political protest challenging public policies in Ontario in 1996.
Do you agree that labour law should be used to ban protests against political parties and political agendas?

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
Bermuda Working Days
next post
The TTC Strike Ban Legislation

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 337 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🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
12m

FYI, the School of HRM at @yorkuniversity will be hiring up to 2 tenure-stream profs including possibly one at the Associate Professor level.

Jobs will be posted in fall for start July 1, 2023. If you know anyone in the market pass along.

https://www.yorku.ca/laps/shrm/

Reply on Twitter 1558834355442552832Retweet on Twitter 1558834355442552832Like on Twitter 1558834355442552832Twitter 1558834355442552832
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
14h

If one these dimwits was a Sacha Baron Cohen-like comedian playing the role of a Republican would any one notice?

PatriotTakes 🇺🇸@patriottakes

Marjorie Taylor Greene believes generating electricity from “wind turbines and solar panels” will result in the loss of air conditioning and home appliances.

Greene: “I like the lights on. I want to stay up later at night. I don’t want to have to go to bed when the sun sets.”

Reply on Twitter 1558630572783722497Retweet on Twitter 15586305727837224972Like on Twitter 15586305727837224974Twitter 1558630572783722497
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
16h

A student told me she is translating chapters of my book into Korean because she learned a lot and wants it as a reference but English is her second language.

Any Korean speakers out there? What does this say?

일의 법칙

Reply on Twitter 1558595466182393858Retweet on Twitter 1558595466182393858Like on Twitter 15585954661823938582Twitter 1558595466182393858
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.