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)
Real Life Pleadings

Real Pleadings: General Motor's Successful Illegal Strike Application Against Unifor

by David Doorey February 26, 2019
written by David Doorey February 26, 2019

February 26 2019

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a “bottom line” decision today ruling that Unifor and some of its officials acted unlawfully by engaging in an illegal strike and “procuring” an unlawful strike at GM in Oshawa and at two GM suppliers in Whitby, Inteva and Leer.

Here are the pleadings that were filed in this case:
General Motor’s Illegal Strike Pleadings
Unifor’s Response to the Application

The Board’s decision comes as no surprise.  In fact, Unifor basically conceded that there had been an unlawful strike, but argued that the Labour Board should exercise

Unifor's unlawful job action is just one of many tactics being engaged to pressure GM to reverse its decision to close the Oshawa factory

Unifor’s unlawful job action is just one of many tactics being engaged to pressure GM to reverse its decision to close the Oshawa factory


its discretion and not issue any remedy because the strike was short and was over before the application was filed.  The OLRB’s Chair, Bernie Fishbein, ruled that Unifor engaged in unlawful strikes at all three locations and that union officials, including Unifor President Gerry Dias, “authorized, encouraged, or counselled” the strikes.  He issued a cease and desist order.
Unifor members walked off the job on November 26 and engaged in a “sit down” strike on January 8  after GM announced in November that it would not be assigning any more lines to Oshawa after December 2019, effectively causing the closure of the historical GM factory.  Unifor has filed a grievance alleging a breach of a collective agreement term prohibiting GM from closing the factory before September 21 2020.
As I explained in this Toronto Star story, Ontario has a very narrow right to strike.  The law restricts strikes in two ways.  Firstly, it defines “strike” very broadly to include any refusal by two or more employees, in concert, to refuse to work or to work to rule:

“strike” includes a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding, or a slow-down or other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output;

This definition clearly captures GM workers who walked off the job with the encouragement of the union to protest GM’s closure announcement, as well as workers who engaged in a collective sit down at the factory.
Secondly, the law restricts strikes to very narrow time frame during the collective bargaining process.  Strikes at any other time are unlawful.  A strike is never lawful during a collective agreement.  That rule is found in Section 79 of the Labour Relations Act, which reads:

Where a collective agreement is in operation, no employee bound by the agreement shall strike and no employer bound by the agreement shall lock out such an employee. 

All of this is explained in depth in Chapter  42 of my Law of Work text.
Since the workers who participated in the work actions were covered by a collective agreement, they were not entitled to respond to GM’s devastating announcement by striking.   The law requires the union to respond to any alleged breach of a collective agreement by filing a grievance, which Unifor has done in this case.
Therefore, there was little doubt that the Labour Board would issue an unlawful strike declaration in this case.  If GM wants to pursue damages against Unifor for lost production, it must file a grievance under the collective agreement and ask an arbitrator to make that order.  The Labour Board can only order damages for an unlawful strike if the strike occurs when no collective agreement is in force (see Section 101, 103).
The Board’s decision can be filed in the Superior Court of Justice (section 102 of the OLRA) and thereafter enforced as a court order.  That means that future illegal job acton by Unifor members could result in a contempt of court order leading to fines and, possibly even imprisonment although that is uncommon these days.
It seems clear that Unifor has decided to pull out all the stops to pressure GM to revisit its decision to close the Oshawa factory, including boycotts and illegal job actions.  Those of you who have studied labour history will be well aware that many of the biggest labour battles–and greatest victories–in Canada and abroad involved worker action that the law treated as unlawful.   I suspect we may not have seen the last legal proceeding involving the campaign against General Motors in Canada.
 

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
Heller v. Uber: Some Thoughts from Ontario on Uber's Arbitration Clause
next post
Real Pleadings: Explosive Lawsuit Alleging Systemic Discrimination in Public Service

You may also like

Real Pleadings: Employment Status Lawsuit Set to Shake...

June 24, 2020

CUPW Alleges that #Foodora Acted Unlawfully by Pulling...

May 12, 2020

Real Pleadings: Explosive Lawsuit Alleging Systemic Discrimination in...

March 14, 2019

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·
18h

@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·
19h

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·
20h

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.