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

Newfoundland & Labrador Introduces Unionization Card-Check Model

by David Doorey June 25, 2012
written by David Doorey June 25, 2012

June 25 2012
Newfoundland & Labrador’s Conservative government is amending their labour laws.  Here is Bill 37, An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act, which I believe just passed Third Reading, meaning it is on its way to becoming law.  Here is a nice chart summarizing the changes.  Comments from those with expertise in N&L labour law (which is not me) would be greatly welcome.  Here’s what I can distill from reading the Bill.
Some of the revisions appear to move N&L closer in line with other provinces.  For example, section 83.1 of the Act is amended to introduce the final offer ballot option, the right of an employer to request that their final offer be put to the membership in a vote supervised by the state, but this can only be done once.  This mirrors the present Ontario law, and the law in other provinces.  Section 81 is amended to introduce potential access to first contract interest arbitration, on the labour board’s discretion.  Section 25 is amended to confer on employers the right to engage in non-threatening, non-coerceive speech.  Section 123 of the Act is changed to grant the labour board extended remedial powers to deal with unfair labour practices, including breaches of the duty to bargain.
There is an interesting new requirement for employers and unions to introduce a “labour management committee” upon the request of either party (Section 85.1).  Once the committee is formed, a new clause is read into the collective agreement that says the following:

At the request of either party the parties shall meet at least once every 2 months for the purpose of discussing issues relating to the workplace in order to promote effective communication between the parties bound by this agreement.

The idea here, as I understand it, is to improve dialogue between workers and employers on ongoing basis.  No doubt somewhere down the road there will be litigation about what “issues relating to the workplace” means, and whether ‘discuss‘ includes any substance beyond nodding along, in the same way we are now tied up in endless Charter litigation about the meaning of the “duty of an employer to consider employee representations in good faith”.  My recollection is that this was something proposed in the Report of the Voisey’s Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission from 2011.  It will be interesting to see if this concept gets picked up elsewhere in the country.
Not doubt the most controversial revision is the introduction of ‘card-check’ based certification when the union submits evidence that 65% or more of employees in the bargaining unit wish to be represented by the union in collective bargaining.  In the case, no certification ballot is required.  This was the approach to testing employee wishes throughout most of Canada until conservative provincial governments began introducing mandatory certification ballots in the 1980s and 1990s in order to try and slow the spread of collective bargaining.  By introducing card-check certification, N&L joins the Federal jurisdiction, Quebec, Manitoba, and the construction industry only  in Ontario (!?).   It’s interesting that it is a Conservative government in N&L.  The new legislation provides:

47. (1) Where an application for certification is supported by at least 65% of the employees in the unit at the time of application and the board is satisfied that the other requirements for certification under this Act have been met, the board shall certify the union as the bargaining agent for the employees in the unit.

Studies indicate that success rates in union organizing campaigns increase somewhat under a card-check system, but why that is is hotly contested.  Proponents of a card-check model argue that this reflects that fact that under a card-check, the ability of employers to campaign against unions and make threats is curtailed, so that card-check is a safer model for testing employee wishes free of employer interference. Opponents of a card-check argue that it is because, under a card-check model, union organizers are running around threatening and tricking employees into signing on.  That’s a theory, but there is precious little evidence to support it.
For my part, I doubt that tricking and threatening workers into signing cards is an often-used strategy by unions.  For one thing, threatening workers is illegal, and could result in the union’s application being thrown out in its entirety, which would not win the union organizer any kudos at the union’s awards dinner.  So there is a built in disincentive for organizers to threaten workers as a tool for getting signatures on union cards.  Secondly, and more importantly, there is little benefit to a union in making outrageous promises to employees to get them to sign a union card, only to then enter into bargaining and be able to obtain none of the things promised.  That will almost certainly result in the union being decertified.  Remember that all that being certified gets the union is a chance to try and bargain a collective agreement that the employees will support.  Part of getting that to happen involves keeping the employees’ expectations at a reasonable level.  The real test for the union comes when they have to try and sell a first collective agreement to the membership with the hope that the workers will see value in what the union bargains.  If the union can’t do that, then having been certified was just a waste of resources and reputation for the union.
Anyhow, we will have to see how things evolve in Newfoundland & Labrador.  Don’t expect some great surge in unionization there because of these laws.  The effect of tweaks in labour laws like this are never as dramatic as those engaged in the debates suggest.

What do you think of this new requirement for employers to create a Labour Management Committee upon request by the union?
Do you like the idea of a card-check option when 65% of employees sign a document saying they would like to be represented by a union, or should the state insist on a ballot no matter what level of support the union documents?

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
Bowes v. Goss Power Products: No Duty for Employee to Mitigate When Contract Includes a Written Notice Term
next post
In the News: Three Legal Strategies for Low Wage Service Sector Workers

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·
41m

Contract Law folks:

Story: @KDTrey5 (Kevin Durant) demands 'fire coach Nash' or trade me! [Or else what? Durant will breach his own contract by not working? Unclear].

Could Nash argue tort of inducing breach of contract?

Could Nash/Nets argue tort of intimidation?

Discuss.

Shams Charania@ShamsCharania

In a meeting with Nets owner Joe Tsai, Kevin Durant reiterated his trade request and informed Tsai that Tsai needs to choose between Durant or the pairing of general manager Sean Marks and coach Steve Nash, sources say.

Story: https://theathletic.com/3485297/2022/08/08/kevin-durant-nets-trade-steve-nash/

Reply on Twitter 1556730963077521408Retweet on Twitter 1556730963077521408Like on Twitter 1556730963077521408Twitter 1556730963077521408
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
59m

This is not streamed I take it?

Not all of us get to hang out in L.A. 😀

Barry Eidlin@eidlin

Interrupting the fashion report to invite people to a discussion I’m moderating tomorrow (8/9) at noon at #ASA2022 on the future of collective bargaining in the US, feat. @veenadubal, Bill Gould & @JLotesta. Should be great!

Reply on Twitter 1556726348865015809Retweet on Twitter 1556726348865015809Like on Twitter 15567263488650158091Twitter 1556726348865015809
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
3h

Looks great!

I took an international labor law course at LSE/Kings College taught by Keith Ewing, Brian Bercusson, Aileen McColgan, and Paul Davies.

Incredible course. And so important.

Desiree LeClercq@LeclercqDesiree

Excited to teach my new #internationallaborlaw course critically considering how labor rights are designed & enforced. The class balances decolonial theory w/ practical experiences. My syllabus (with names redacted) below. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1556698559650603008Retweet on Twitter 15566985596506030081Like on Twitter 15566985596506030086Twitter 1556698559650603008
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.