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

NFL player files Complaint Against Players Union

by David Doorey September 27, 2011
written by David Doorey September 27, 2011

There’s  a curious little story circulating on the web involving labour law and football players.
This story explains that Cincinnati Bengals running back Cedric Benson has filed what we call a duty of fair representation complaint against the NFL Players Association.  His complaint is that the Union allegedly signed an agreement with the NFL (the employer) that prohibited the employer from disciplining some 25 NFL players for misconduct taking place during the recent NFL lockout, but allowed 8 other “repeat offenders”, including Benson, to be disciplined.   The result is that the NFL suspended Benson for 3 games “for two misdemeanor assault cases that landed him in jail for five days.”  Nice.
There’s a few interesting legal issues here.  Let’s assume Ontario law applied.
First, can an employer discipline an employee for misconduct taking place during a strike or lockout? Yes.  Section 1(2) of the Labour Relations Act tells us that a worker does not cease to be an employee during a strike or lockout.  An employee is not free to engage in any sort of unlawful conduct they like during a strike.  The key question that arises is whether the discipline was imposed to punish an employee for exercising union-related activities that the legislation protects.  In other words, was the employer motivated by “anti-union animus”, or motive, in its decision to discipline the employee?  If so, the employer would be in violation of the Act.
An example is considered in the OLRB decision Toromont Cat, where the Labour Board ruled that the employer did not violate the Act when it terminated a union member for making a fake bomb threat against the workplace.  The Board ruled:

Toromont chose to terminate the employment of a person who brought whatever business Toromont was conducting that day to a halt.  Mr. Valerio frightened employees, customers and their families.  He caused a highway to be closed and the police and their bomb squad to attend.  Mr. Valerio’s employment was terminated.  In doing so, Toromont did not violate section 70 of the Act.

Would a union violate its duty to a member if it signed an agreement protecting some, but not all workers from discipline for conduct during a strike or lockout?
I’d say in answer to that question:  maybe.
The key provision in Ontario is Section 74, which says this:

A trade union…, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit…

Certainly, if a union makes a side deal with the employer that sells out a few workers while protecting others and there is no reasonable explanation for the different treatment, the union could be in trouble.  However, if the union can give some explanation for the agreement that is not “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith”, then the union is likely fine.  This usually means that the union need only show that it based its decision on some sensible grounds.
Here, the Union’s explanation looks like it may be:
(1)  the workers (like Benson) excluded from the “protection from discipline list” were “repeat offenders”.  The employer was fighting hard to preserve a right to discipline the repeat offenders, but was prepared to allow the first time offenders off in order to get a deal in the labour dispute;  and
(2)  the Union did not waive its right to file a grievance against any discipline imposed.
If it was Ontario law applying, I suspect this explanation would be accepted by the Labour Board if true.  It is a rationale explanation not related to discrimination or bad faith.  A union is entitled to sometimes make difficult decisions in order to protect the greater good, even if it pissing off one union member.
What do you think about this?  Should a union be able to enter into a deal like the one discussed here, that protects some but not all bargaining unit employees form discipline?

0 comment
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
Did Target Select Any Unionized Zellers?
next post
Discrimination at Work Based on "Perceived" Disability

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.