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

Time to Rethink How We Regulate Long Work Stoppages?

by David Doorey December 7, 2012
written by David Doorey December 7, 2012

No End in Sight for NHL Lockout

Published on December 7 2012

And on it goes.  Talks between the NHL and NHLPA have yet again broken down.  It’s now looking more and more like another entire season will be lost.  The parties have been at an ‘impasse’ for weeks, if not months.  Government mediation has failed.  Meetings with individual owners and players without the two chief negotiators has failed.  So now what?
Under American law, which has been governing this process, nothing happens.  The lockout will just continue indefinitely until one side or the other caves or the parties decide that losing $20 million per day is worse than reaching a deal of some sort.  Only 750 wealthy employees and a hand full of super rich employers are directly involved in the dispute, but thousands of other workers and businesses that rely on NHL games are suffering as a result of this extended stoppage. There is heavy collateral damage.   The union could decertify, which could make the lockout illegal, though what result that would have for the future of the NHL is uncertain.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the NHLPA moves towards the decertification route now, since other options for kick-starting the bargaining process have dried up.

Should labour law have a better set of tools for dealing with this sort of entrenched warfare?  What would those tools look like?

In the U.S., collective bargaining is not constitutionally protected, yet governments never intervene in work stoppages.  In Canada, collective bargaining is constitutionally protected, yet our governments frequently intervene in work stoppages by passing back to work legislation.  Usually, this occurs with respect to public sector workplaces, though the Federal Tories have recently begun to intervene in private sector disputes too (Air Canada, CP Rail). When Canadian governments intervene by ending work stoppages, they claim they are doing so to protect innocent third parties from harm inflicted by the stoppage.  Usually, when a work stoppage is ended by legislation, the government substitutes a neutral interest arbitrator to hear submissions from the parties about the outstanding issues, and then impose a collective agreement.
How about a law that would ensure that work stoppages have a limited shelf life?
There is one very obvious legal tool that could make long work stoppages a thing of the past:  allow either the union or the employer to request a neutral, expert interest arbitrator or three person arbitration board be appointed to impose a collective agreement after a work stoppage has continued for some period of time.  The Manitoba legislation uses 60 days as the marker. That seems like a sensible number, since it is long enough that in most cases the parties would still feel pressure to reach a deal.  And as the 60 day marker approaches, uncertainty about an arbitrated outcome would create pressure to compromise.
In most Canadian jurisdictions, binding interest arbitration can now only be accessed if both parties request it.  Section 40 of the Ontario legislation
 

Stelco Lockout Lasted Nearly a Year


is an example. Both sides rarely jointly request arbitration, since one side or the other usually believes they’d be better off continuing the work stoppage.  A law that allowed either party to access arbitration after a work stoppage has lasted 60 days would still encourage settlements in the vast majority of cases, since 60 days is a very long time.  The vast majority of work stoppages last less than 30 days.  However, a law that gave access to arbitration after 60 days would place a limit on collateral damage caused by work stoppages, and allow for better contingency planning by everyone. If you can’t solve your bargaining problems in 60 days of a work stoppage, the state will give you the option of having a neutral expert arbitrator solve it for you.
To give you a feel for when a law like this would be relevant, consider the following recent long work stoppages, some of which were strikes and some were lockouts:
A 60 Day Interest Arbitration Law Would Have Been Relevant to the Following Work Stoppages

York University TAs:  85 day work stoppage

Windsor City Workers:  101 days

B.C. paramedics: 7 months

Vale Inco:  358 days

Stelco:  11 months

Rio Tinto Mine (Quebec):  6 months

A 60 Day Interest Arbitration Law Would Not Have Kicked in in the Following Work Stoppages

Ottawa Transit Workers:  51 days

Toronto City Workers: 35 days

Questions for Discussion
What do you think about the proposed law, which would allow either side to refer a dispute to interest arbitration after 60 days of a work stoppage has passed?
If such a law were introduced in your province, do you think one party (unions or employers) would object, and why?  Does such a law tend to favour one side or the other?
Are you surprised that politicians are not more seriously considering a law like this, given that public attitude seems to be strongly against long work stoppages these days?

1 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
Employers Can't Ask an Applicant's Age, and Volunteer Work is 'Employment" under Human Rights Code
next post
Happy Holidays: Top 10 Blog Posts from a Hectic 2012

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

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

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
10h

Interested in your comment that you don’t have rules. I’d think that submitting an essay written by a machine without citing the machine is just straight up plagiarism.

My view is that any text not written by yourself needs to be fully cited.

Andres Guadamuz @technollama

@shahaoul @glynmoody Indeed. As we don't have rules, we can only mark what's in front of us. I can imagine some students using it judiciously, to get a technical definition for example, but in other cases the result can be an incoherent unstructured essay. So we mark it as that.

Reply on Twitter 1619691956413808640 Retweet on Twitter 1619691956413808640 2 Like on Twitter 1619691956413808640 23 Twitter 1619691956413808640
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
19h

McDonald's president who made $7.4 million last year says proposal to pay fast-food workers $22 an hour is 'costly and job-destroying' https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/mcdonalds-president-who-made-dollar74-million-last-year-says-proposal-to-pay-fast-food-workers-dollar22-an-hour-is-costly-and-job-destroying/ar-AA16Mc7D?ocid=a2hs&li=BBnb7Kz

Reply on Twitter 1619548631421562880 Retweet on Twitter 1619548631421562880 17 Like on Twitter 1619548631421562880 47 Twitter 1619548631421562880
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
20h

Google axes thousands of jobs while rolling in cash on orders from Wall Street pencil pushers. Pretty obvious where public anger should be directed.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2023/01/28/dont-do-evil-massive-layoffs-at-google-shine-a-light-on-tech-giants-ugly-side.html

Reply on Twitter 1619544883609407488 Retweet on Twitter 1619544883609407488 7 Like on Twitter 1619544883609407488 9 Twitter 1619544883609407488
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.