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 ArchiveUncategorized

Province Turns to Little Used Industrial Inquiry Commission at York University

by David Doorey April 13, 2018
written by David Doorey April 13, 2018

April 13 2018

The long road to a resolution of the six week long bitter strike of contract faculty at York University took a new twist today as the province appointed an Industrial Inquiry Commission to look into the dispute.   Here is the province’s formal announcement.
Well respected senior arbitrator and mediator, William Kaplan, has been appointed as a single commissioner to meet with the parties and examine the strike and assess the possibility of a resolution.
What Is an Industrial Inquiry Commission?
The power to appoint an Industrial Inquiry Commission is found in Section 37 of the Labour Relations Act.  That section read as follows:

37 (1) The Minister may establish an industrial inquiry commission to inquire into and report to the Minister on any industrial matter or dispute that the Minister considers advisable.

Composition and powers
(2) The industrial inquiry commission shall consist of one or more members appointed by the Minister and the commission shall have all the powers of a conciliation board under section 33.

Remuneration and expenses
(3) The chair and members of the commission shall be paid remuneration and expenses at the same rate as is payable to a chair and members of a conciliation board under this Act.

Section 33 of the Act grants Mr. Kaplan the authority to receive evidence and subpoena witnesses and generally to investigate and fact find as he deems necessary.

William Kaplan has been appointed to lead an Industrial Inquiry Commission into the York Strike

William Kaplan has been appointed to lead an Industrial Inquiry Commission into the York Strike


Industrial commissions date way back to the earliest labour relations legislation in Canada.  Students of labour history will know that MacKenzie King was the strongest advocate of government intervention in the form of mandatory conciliation and industrial disputes investigations.   The basic machinery of the modern day conciliation, mediation and investigation mechanism in collective bargaining legislation date to the early Railway Labour Disputes Act of 1903 and the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907.
King, the architect of that legislation, strongly believed that a full investigation into a labour dispute by a neutral third party appointed by the state and the subsequent public reporting of that investigation’s findings of the causes and possible ways to resolve the dispute would push the parties towards reasonable compromises and settlements.  Crucial to this theory was the requirement for the investigator’s report to be made public because King believed that the weight of public opinion (and anger) would be brought to bear on any party that was perceived to be acting unreasonably.
Parenthetically, lots has been written about this history, but the classic by my York colleagues Eric Tucker and Judge Fudge (Judy is now in England) called Labour Before the Law is a definite must read, as is An Impartial Umpire: Industrial Relations and the Canadian State: 1900-1911 by Paul Craven, yet another York colleague. 
Over time, MacKenzie King’s confidence in the power of public opinion to influence collective bargaining behaviour through reports of independent investigation inquiries made public wained.  Unlike in the old legislation, today’s Labour Relations Act does not require the Commission’s report to be made public, just that it be delivered to the Minister of Labour and the parties.
The Industrial Inquiry Commission is seldom used.  It was last used in Ontario in  2015 in the ugly strike at Crown Metal Packaging which had dragged on for 18 months.  Commissioner Morton Mitchnick submitted a report to the Minister which I do not believe was ever made public (if I am wrong about that, please let me know).   Before that, a Commission was last appointed in 2007.  This is an unusual move by the government, but one that allows it to say it is doing something without actually intervening to end the strike through Constitutionally suspect back to work legislation. 
Mr. Kaplan will begin by meeting with the parties, probably separately, at least at first, to develop a full understanding of the issues.   Although his job is to investigate and report on the York dispute, he will no doubt also look for opportunities to mediate and steer the parties toward a settlement if he thinks that is possible.
At the end of his investigation, Mr. Kaplan will issue a report to the Minister of Labour.  The statute gives him an initial 30 day window from the first meeting but also permits an extension of that time limit. Mr. Kaplan can make observations and findings of fact.  However, importantly, an  Industrial Inquiry Commission does not have powers to order the parties to settle or to make bargaining concessions.  Nor is he an arbitrator; he cannot draft a collective agreement and impose it on the parties.  The Commissioner’s powers are limited to investigation and reporting back to the Minister.
York responded to the appointment of Mr. Kaplan by calling on CUPE to return to work pending the investigation.   York is free to make that request, however no law requires CUPE or CUPE members to return to work.  The appointment of an Industrial Inquiry Commission does not terminate the strike.
The appointment of Mr. Kaplan could be useful in the sense of adding an experienced and fresh set of eyes to the problem.  He doesn’t have formal powers to order the parties to change their positions, but he does demand a level of respect and he can make his views clear if he believes one side or there other or both are acting unreasonably.   He can, as Premier McGuinty once phrased it, use his authority to figuratively “bang some heads together”.
So we watch, and we wait.
 
 
 

1 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
Fantastic Job Opportunity to do Research Work in Glasgow on Precarious Work and Law
next post
Announcing the Inaugural Law of Work Best Paper Award Winner

You may also like

Canadian Law of Work Forum’s Most Read Posts:...

December 27, 2020

The Idea of Graduated Collective Labour Rights

March 3, 2020

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

Artificial Intelligence Is Now a Pentagon Priority. Will...

August 27, 2018

Grieving Orca Carries Dead Calf for More Than...

August 27, 2018

Presidents, Race and the Military, in the 1940s...

August 27, 2018

Who Are the Trade War Losers? Just Look...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 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.