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

Should the Agricultural Employees Protection Act Be Extended to All Canadian Employees?

by David Doorey March 19, 2012
written by David Doorey March 19, 2012

I attended a great conference this weekend at Osgoode Hall Law School with some of the leading labour lawyers and academics from Canada, the U.S., and Britain.  The conference was entitled “Voices at Work”, a theme devoted to a conversation about how law can facilitate worker voice and participation in important workplace decisions.  My paper was called “Governing and Regoverning the Workplace”.
It considered  how Canadian law protects nonunion employee associations, employees who join together without the assistance of a “trade union”.  The answer is that our law does not protect them at all, and gives the association no rights whatsoever.
The Ontario Labour Relations Act only protects a very narrow type of employee association:  “trade union activity”. Read section 70 and ask yourself whether the protections against employer interference apply when there is no “trade union” involved.  Employers have no legal obligation to discuss, bargain, negotiate, or even listen to an employee association that is not a “trade union”, even if 100% of the employees support the association.  And of course, there is no protected right of nonunion employees to strike in Canada. Ever.
This is very different than in the U.S., for example.  There, the NLRA prohibits employer reprisals against employees for exercising any type of associational activity, not just ‘trade union’ activity, and employees who form a nonunion employee association have the same legal rights to strike as unionized workers.  Canada’s basic labour laws have perhaps the narrowest legal definition of employee association in the Western world.
But here is the really weird thing: The Supreme Court of Canada has now ruled that the Charter guarantees the right of all employees to associate, to make collective representations to the employer, and to have those representations considered in good faith, which might include ‘negotiation’ with the association (see B.C. Health Services and Fraser).  Yet most non-union workers have no legal protections for any of those rights, unless they form or join a “trade union” that represents a majority of workers and can obtain certification after a heated contest and ballot.
Therefore, I argued that governments should move labour policy into compliance with Charter values by extending the rights guaranteed in Fraser and B.C. Health Services to all employees.   Check out my chart.
Graduated Freedom of Association Model

I argue that governments should extend the basic principals in the much-maligned Agricultural Employees Protection Act to all employees. If the Charter guarantees employees a right, then the provincial law should protect the effective exercise of that right.  This means that all employee associational activity  should be protected from reprisals (not just ‘trade union’ activity), and the law should ensure  that collective representations presented to the employer by an employee association are considered  in good faith, whatever that duty turns out to mean as we sort out what Fraser means.  These are the legal rights conferred in the AEPA model.
All the ‘thinner’ associational rights listed in sections A and B of the Chart should be protected by the Labour Relations Act, since they are guaranteed by the Charter, even if some employees might also be able to access the ‘thicker’ rights in section C of the Chart.

I make several reform proposals to bring this model into effect.  The AEPA model needs some revisions to make it more effective. For example, one change needed to the AEPA model is that the identity of employees who have joined the association must be confidential, just as the identity of union members is not disclosed to an employer under the OLRA.

I think this is the direction the SCC is leading us anyways.  If the Charter guaratees a right to form an association and make collective representations to an employer, why should homeworkers and retail workers only have protections to exercise these rights if they are able to form a majority, certified “trade union”?  It no longer makes any sense to link Section 2(d) associational rights solely to the institution of majority trade unionism. In fact, I think a strong argument can already be made post Fraser that the OLRA model is ‘under-inclusive’,  because it protects only associational activity exercised through one form of association:  “majority trade unionism”.

The new model will introduce the concept of minority employee associations and minority trade unionism into Canada.  Employers will be required to discuss (and perhaps negotiate) with any employee association one or more employee joins, as is required now under the AEPA model.  Whether employees in non-majority  employee associations will have a right to strike is an issue that may be addressed in upcoming cases that raise the Charter right to strike.
The real question is whether this will be useful to workers or not?  I have some thoughts on that, which will be fleshed out more in my final paper.
Thoughts, comments, or criticisms welcome.

0 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
Can Calling in 'Fatigued' Be Unlawful Strike When Law Prohibits Working While 'Fatigued'?
next post
Good Luck Craig Scott in Toronto-Danforth By-Election

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 ·
58m

It’s crazy that fast food restaurants include non-competes in employment contracts for cooks and front line staff to stop them from leaving.

Never mind whether it’s legal—in Canada, those clauses are definitely not enforceable—it’s just sleazy. Terrible ethics.

Sandeep Vaheesan @sandeepvaheesan

Nice!

Reply on Twitter 1623168822235615232 Retweet on Twitter 1623168822235615232 5 Like on Twitter 1623168822235615232 9 Twitter 1623168822235615232
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 7 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
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.