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)
Charter of Rights and FreedomsCOVID-19Supreme Court of CanadaUnions and Collective Bargaining

What Recent Strikes in U.S. at Whole Foods, Amazon Disclose About Canadian Labour Law

by David Doorey April 1, 2020
written by David Doorey April 1, 2020

Written by David Doorey

Non-union workers employed by giant U.S. corporations including Whole Foods, Amazon, and Instacart have engaged in a series of strikes this week to protest dangerous working conditions and low pay during the #COVID19 epidemic.  

What is striking from a Canadian perspective is that these strikes are probably legal, protected by the right to engage in “concerted activities for mutual aid and benefit” found in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.  It is striking because non-union workers in Canada never have a legally protected right to strike. Not ever.  Canadian workers have an individual right to refuse unsafe work, but that can be a treacherous right to exercise in practice and, in any event, that right certainly does not apply to the full scope of the protests in the U.S., which includes demands for “double hazard pay” among other things.

So when Amazon terminated New York strike organizer Chris Smalls this week, it may have violated the NLRA.Amazon says Smalls was terminated for other reasons, but employers always say that when they fire labour agitators and organizers.  If Smalls files a Section 7 complaint and wins, the NLRB could reinstate him. It’s true that the practical effectiveness of NLRA section 7 does not always match its potential owing to delay and an enfeebled NLRB that is not always interested in protecting labour leaders, especially during this Trump era.  However, the Section 7 right of employees to organize and act collectively, including to strike, even when they are non-union may be the most important labour law right in practice today south of the border, where private sector union density sits near 5 percent.

If non-union employees of Whole Foods in Toronto or Vancouver joined in the “sick out” protest this week, an action involving a coordinated campaign to have employees call in sick in protest as part of campaign for higher wages, they would be in fundamental breach of their employment contracts. This would be grounds for termination. Collective bargaining legislation would not even be in play (unless a striker argued that they were a union member and the termination was for that reason and not because they refused to report to work). The only legal question would be whether the employee was entitled to termination pay under employment standards legislation or common law. 

Canadian governments adopted the basic structure of the U.S. NLRAcollective bargaining model (the “Wagner Model”) back in the 1940s. However, variations were introduced to create a distinctly Canadian version of the Wagner Model.  Differences in the protection of the right to strike were among the most important.  The Canadian model provides greater protections than the NLRAfor legal strikers; in the U.S., strikers can be “permanently replaced” by strike-breaking workers, whereas Canadian law generally protects the right of a lawful striker to return to their job once the strike is over.  However, in exchange for that greater level of protection for lawful strikers, Canadian law much more tightly regulates the circumstances in which a strike is lawful.  In Canada, non-union workers can neverlawfully strike, any strike during a collective agreement is unlawful in Canada, and even in the case of unionized workers without a collective agreement, there are other legal preconditions to a lawful strike that must be satisfied (mandatory government conciliation, strike votes, waiting period, and so forth).

An important difference between the two collective bargaining models is that the U.S. model builds up from an individual right to engage in concerted activities whereas the Canadian model protects a tightly regulated system of trade union rights.  This difference becomes stark when we observe mass national strikes by non-union workers in the U.S. to protest working conditions.  Canadian workers in similar circumstances may also decide to protest and walk off the job, and that action may even produce positive results (Canadian history is as full of successful unlawful strikes as it is with unsuccessful lawful strikes). The difference is that the Canadian workers would be acting without any legal safety net.

I argued in a paper published in 2013that to make real the Charter protected “freedom to associate” for the millions of Canadian workers who would never be able to access majority trade union collective bargaining in the Wagner Model mold, our laws should at least guarantee a “right to engage in concerted activities” similar to the right protected by NLRA section 7. I was projecting forward to a time when private sector union density in this country might fall to near 10 percent (it’s at about 15% now). With 85-90 percent of private sector workers in Canada being non-union, a legally protected right to protest alongside one’s coworkers will take on greater urgency.  This is what has happened in the U.S. over the past two decades. Many of the most creative and successful worker resistance campaigns have involved non-union workers exercising their section 7 rights to concerted activity.

In a new paper to be published this summer in the University of Toronto Law Journal, I build on this argument and argue that a “right to engage in concerted activity” will eventually arrive in Canada. To demonstrate the problem, I discuss two Ontario cases in which non-union workers were terminated for raising collective concerns about working conditions but without any union involvement (Burton v. Aronovitch McCauley Rollo LLPand Alagano v. Miniworld Management (North York Infant Nursery and Preschool)).  InBurton, a legal clerk was fired for raising an issue about pay on behalf of herself and her coworkers. In Algano, it was a daycare worker who was fired for doing the same, and then her coworkers were also fired for striking to protest the termination.

All of these dismissals would violate NLRA section 7. For the termination of Burton and Alagano to be covered by the Ontario Labour Relations Actit would take a broad, purposive interpretation of the meaning of “trade union activities” in the unfair labour practice provisions, one that captures spontaneous collective action in the absence of a union.  Even that broad interpretation would not save the workers fired for striking. 

The COVID19 epidemic has highlighted the absence of a general right to engage in collective protest at work in Canada.  There have been reports of workers threatening to stop working for fear of contracting COVID.  An action like that would be unlawful unless the workers can somehow bring their collective work refusal within the right to refuse unsafe work in occupational health and safety legislation.  But the right to refuse is a poor legal vehicle to protect collective action.  

In my forthcoming paper, I argue that a “right to engage in concerted activities” could come to Canadian labour law through a variety of routes. These include the Supreme Court effectively reading in such a right in a Dunmore–like underinclusive Charter case. Imagine for example that a labour board rules that existing labour relations legislation does not protect employees like Burton and Alagano because the legislation only protects workers engaging in “trade union activities”, of which there was none. Given that the right to make collective representations without reprisals is protected by the Charter, is our statutory model not under-inclusive in failing to protect workers, like these two women, who are fired simply for expressing collective concerns to their employer?  If so, a Charter remedy could include reading in a right to engage in collective activities. Or maybe the Court would rule, similar to its approach in Fraser, that read purposively, the existing protections against reprisals for “trade union activities” already protect an NLRA section 7like right to engage in “concerted activities”.  How the newly recognized Charter right to strike would fit into this equation is an intriguing question.

Alternatively, a right to engage in concerted activities might be legislated. This was the recommendation of a recent federal task force on modernizing labour standards (see recommendation 25).  In this context, the new right would be intended to thickenlabour rights by providing an additional tool to enable collective worker voice while preserving the thicker Wagner Model of majority collective bargaining. This was what I had in mind in my earlier piece, and what Brishen Rogers and Simon Archer argued a few years later in their article. 

However, it is also possible to imagine a conservative government introducing a right to engage in collective activities as part of movement to weakencollective labour rights.  This might seem counter-intuitive, but one need only consider the situation in the U.S. where section 7 already protects a broad right of non-union workers to engage in concerted activities to improve working conditions, and yet there is almost universal agreement within the global labour law community that the legal model governing the rights of U.S. workers is as poor as any in the western world. A right to engage in concerted activities could be introduced alongside other reforms designed to dismantle the Wagner Model. A move like that, which does not replace the Wagner Model with a new robust model of, say, sectoral bargaining, would simply drag Canadian labour law down closer to the U.S. model.

I don’t know a single person who believes that Canadian workers would be better off under the U.S. system of work laws.   The devil, as always, will be in the details.

David Doorey, “What Recent Strikes in U.S. at Whole Foods, Amazon Disclose About Canadian Labour Law” Canadian Law of Work Forum (April 1 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=12181

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.

1 comment

Fernando Reis April 1, 2020 - 12:50 pm

If there is a right to engage in concerted activities for workers not covered by a collective agreement, would unionized workers also have the right to engage in concerted activities during the term of a collective agreement? Put another way, would it be possible to allow some workers to engage in concerted activities but not others? In Fraser, the SCC said that workers should have a right to make representations to their employer but did not (at least I don’t think it did) say anything about the right to strike or engage in concerted activities in order to put pressure on an employer. We also have unionized workers that don’t have a right to strike. The SCC said that’s o.k. so long as they have access to a meaningful alternative. Which leads to this question: is the right to engage in concerted activities a meaningful alternative to the right to strike? Finally, in a way, I see the recent time limited strikes by teachers as more akin to engaging in a concerted activities than a traditional strike. Lots of questions, no doubt.

Reply
previous post
Construction Labour Law and COVID-19
next post
More on the Issue of Whether Canadian Labour Boards Are Suspending Union Applications for Certification During COVID19

You may also like

The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in...

February 19, 2021

Real Pleadings: Has Uber Created a New Service...

February 15, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Prof. Doorey’s Updated Beginners’ Guide to the Charter...

February 1, 2021

Calling the Shots: Is Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination a...

January 29, 2021

Does COVID Justify Longer Periods of Reasonable Notice?

January 25, 2021

What is a Minority Union?

January 4, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

David Doorey on Jacobin: “Collective Bargaining Needs a...

December 16, 2020

Arbitrator: Employees Must Get Swabbed for COVID

December 16, 2020

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.