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

Rand Formula Required by Charter!

by David Doorey December 11, 2009
written by David Doorey December 11, 2009

The Alberta Labour Relations Board issued an interesting Charter decision recently, ruling that the absence of the Rand Formula from the Alberta labour relations code was a violation of freedom of association in Section 2(d).  It involves Old Dutch Foods and the UFCW.  Here is the decision.  The Board gave the government 1 year to introduce some form of Rand Formula.  Of course, a review of the decision may be well underway by then.
The Rand Formula describes a statutory provision introduced decades ago in most provinces that provides that, where a union so requests, the collective agreement must include a clause requiring the employer to deduct union dues from all employees in a bargaining unit (employees covered by a collective agreement) and remit the money to the union.  In Ontario, it appears in Section 47.   It was the solution proposed by Justice Ivan Rand to end a bitter strike at Ford in Windsor back in the 1940s.
Alberta, and some of the maritime provinces (N.B., N.S., and PEI), have not included a mandatory union dues provision like the other provinces.  The Alberta Board decision notes that the Rand Fomula was part of a package of reforms that comprise the core of our labour law model in Canada, which includes majority representation (unions are elected by a majority of employees), exclusive representation (once the union is seletected, it becomes the representative of all employees in the bargaining unit), and a duty of fair representation (the union has a legal obligation to represent all bargaining unit employees, even those who are not union members–i.e. haven’t signed a union card).  The justification for a Rand Fomula is that all employees benefit from the union’s services, and the union is legally mandated to represent all employees, and therefore it is only fair that all employees should have to contribute their share to the costs of the union performing these services.  Plus,  a Rand Formula puts an end to strikes for union security, a common event in Canada labour history.
Alberta’s government felt fine about imposing the duty to represent all workers on unions, but not the reciprical duty on employees to pay their share of the costs of that representation.  In my opinion, the obvious reason is that the Alberta government does not actually want to empower unions by securing them a stable source of financing.  However, the government explains its position as protecting the free ‘choice’ of workers (to free ride on the services paid by others, I presume).  Interestingly, the government did not argue that the violation of Section 2(d) was justified under Section 1.
The Labour Board ruled that not including a provision that requires all bargaining unit employees to pay union dues is unconstitutional because it substantially impedes the ability of workers to join together and engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

  In the case before us, as already mentioned, we accept the Union’s claim that the Code is underinclusive because it fails to provide adequate statutory protection to enable it and its members to engage in meaningful collective bargaining, the effect of which is to substantially interfere with the fundamental freedom of association.  

I consider a similar argument in my new paper (coming out in the next volume of the Canadian Labour & Employment Law Journal) about whether Section 2(d) now requires governments to legislate union access to workplaces for the purposes of union organizing.  My point was that ILO Convention 87 requires this, and the Supreme Court ruled in Health Services that Section 2(d) of the Charter must provide at least as much protection as Convention 87.  However, I conclude ultimately that union access would not be required by Section 2(d) because unions would be unable to show that not having access ‘substantially interferes’ with collective bargaining or the right to organize.
In the Alberta case, the Board relied on the lower union density in non Rand formula provinces, and the fact the UFCW has been unable to bargain a mandatory dues check-off in its long time relationship with Old Dutch,  to justify its conclusion that the absence of a Rand Formula provision ‘substantially interferes’ with the exercise of Section 2(d) rights.
And so, the ongoing modernization of Section 2(d) continues …

5 comments
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
Obiter Dicta: No Law Profs on TVO Top Lecturers List..
next post
See you next week…

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 ·
39m

There’s many measures in academia that rank influence based on number of citations of academic articles.

Advice to new scholars:

If these rankings matter to you, do NOT focus your publications on Canadian labour & employment law. The potential audience is WAY too small!

Reply on Twitter 1623062714028290049 Retweet on Twitter 1623062714028290049 Like on Twitter 1623062714028290049 Twitter 1623062714028290049
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

I use Steve Martin’s template for making a personal connection with his fans to make a personal connection with my students.

Reply on Twitter 1622997711287885824 Retweet on Twitter 1622997711287885824 5 Like on Twitter 1622997711287885824 50 Twitter 1622997711287885824
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

Some numbers from Stats Can:

- Union density⬇️from 38% in 1981 to 29% in 2022.

- Over same period, % of men in unions⬇️ by 16%, but remained stable for women.

- Result: women (31%) more likely to be unionized in Canada than men (26%)

🧵 /1

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2022011/article/00001-eng.htm

Reply on Twitter 1622996016281657347 Retweet on Twitter 1622996016281657347 12 Like on Twitter 1622996016281657347 24 Twitter 1622996016281657347
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
  • Newfoundland
  • 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.