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

Law Commission on Vulnerable Work (and Doorey's Submission)

by David Doorey March 21, 2011
written by David Doorey March 21, 2011

The Law Commission of Ontario is now situated across the field from me here at York.  The LCO studies areas of law in need of reform.  One of their existing projects looks at how to improve the legal treatment of “vulnerable workers”.  All of the information about this project is here on the LCO website.
Here is a story from the Toronto Star on the initiative.
Of interest is the fact that the LCO is accepting comments and submissions from the public and interested groups.  The deadline is April 1st, which is fast approaching. You can send comments by email, mail, or fax, and all the contact info is on the webpage linked above.
Yours truly has thrown together a submission.  Here’s a draft that you can download if you’re interested.
I elected to focus on a very specific issue:  improving compliance with the Employment Standards Act.  I recognize that poor enforcement of the ESA  is only one small part of the story of why there are vulnerable workers.  Much more ambitious reforms are needed than what I have proposed.  But others will write about those reforms.  I wanted to put together a relatively brief discussion paper exploring how we might think about the employment standards differently to improve compliance with it.
Here’s a preview to wet your appetite.  I propose two main reforms (and a few smaller, related reforms).

More and Better Information
1.  A new Office of the ESA Advisor to provide information to employees and employers.
2. A new Statement of Employment to be completed by employers, that must be provided to all new employees.  The form sets out the basic contract terms covering wages, overtime pay, vacation pay, and hours of work, alongside the employees statutory entitlements for the corresponding contract term (i.e.  the wage rate in the contract and the present minimum wage for the job in question).
3. A new Statement of the End of Employment to be completed by employers and provided to employees within one week of the end of an employment contract, regardless of how the contract ends.  The form explains what the employee is entitled to under the ESA in terms of wages, vacation pay, and termination and severance pay, and how the employer has paid those amounts or intends to.
Each form explains the rules in the statute and provides the parties with information about who to contact for more information.
A Dual Regulatory Stream
The more novel part of the proposal challenges lawmakers to think of workplace law regulation not as distinct regimes of Labour Law (governing union and collective bargaining issues) and Employment Regulation (ESA, etc), but as a coherent whole intended to protect workers.
Among other reforms, I propose that laws presently in place that grant employers significant latitude to try and influence the outcome of unionization attempts by their employees be “earned” rights, that are forfeited whenever an employer violates the ESA.  In particular, I focus on the rights of employers to argue against unionization (employer speech rights) and the right of employers to insist on a certification ballot even in the face of written expressions of support for collective bargaining by a clear majority of employees (mandatory ballots).   My argument is that only responsible, law-abiding employers who demonstrate a commitment to their employees’ welfare should be entitled to those rights. If  an employer violates the ESA, it should lose its right to proselytize against collective bargaining and to insist on a certification ballot.  Why should the state support an employer’s right to campaign against collective bargaining when the employer hasn’t even the decency to pay the minimum wage or proper overtime pay?

The model I propose would be relatively simple to legislate, but would create a much more significant incentive for union-averse employers to comply with the ESA, and would facilitate union organizing at those workplaces where workers could most benefit from collective bargaining.
There’s much more to it than this,  so read my submission if you are interested.  Then tell me why my proposal stinks, or why it presents a useful way of looking at ESA compliance problems.

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
B.C. Finally Raises Minimum Wage! Cue the Battling Economists
next post
Moxies: Where "Uglies" Need Not Apply?

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.