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

The G.M. Injunction Decision

by David Doorey June 16, 2008
written by David Doorey June 16, 2008

Justice Salmers issued his decision in the G.M. injunction on June 13th.  Here it is.  It’s an interesting decision. Ultimately, G.M. gets its injunction, because the court believed the company and the community would suffer ‘irreparable harm’ without it.  But the CAW can take some solace in the fact that the judge was clearly disgusted with G.M.’s conduct, calling it ‘almost deceitful’, and finding that G.M. did not ‘have clean hands’.  Salmers also makes some factual findings that will be key in an unfair labour practice complaint and arbitration hearing.  For example, he finds:

  1. G.M. knew for some time before June 1st that ‘the Oshawa truck plant closure announcement was imminent’, yet it elected not to engage in ‘advance discussion’ with the CAW before its June 3rd announcement of the closure, in clear contravention of the requirement in the Collective Agreement for that to occur.
  2. That G.M. executives in Detroit knew, or were aware of the possibility of the Oshawa plant closing during the collective bargaining, that the CAW had clearly raised this as a crucial issue in bargaining, and that they let the GM negotiators in Canada agree to the ‘advance discussion’ provisions.
That last point is important because the OLRB has said that the ignorance of the company negotiators is not an excuse to bad faith bargaining (see a case called Union Carbide (May 29, 1992, OLRB)).  The knowledge of the corporate executives would be attributed to the Canadian negotiators, since part of the duty to bargain is a requirement to send fully informed spokespeople to the table.    So, the facts look good for the CAW in possible ‘bad faith bargaining’ and grievance procedures, but what remedy  they can obtain will remain a big question in those proceedings.
Finally, the limit on the number of picketers (20) that continue to picket outside GM offices is a little unusual given that there has been no violence.  Previous Ontario decisions have found that  the number of picketers is not a problem if the picketing is peaceful.  In rejecting a limitation on the number of picketers in Industrial Hardwood (2001), 52 O.R. (3d) 694, the Court of Appeal wrote:

it must be remembered that picketing is a vital and constitutionally sanctioned means of collective expression in modern labour relations. Picketing speaks not just to the issues in dispute, but to the solidarity of the employees involved. In this respect, the number of picketers is itself an important part of that expression.

The CAW might have grounds to appeal that restriction if it wanted to continue large scale, but non-obstructive, peaceful demonstrations.

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
The G.M. Injunction
next post
The Vote versus Card-Check Debate Again: Saskatchewan

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
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
5h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 140 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 412 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
10h

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 84 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 242 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Oh fun.

‘AI is on the cusp of taking control: This is how it may all go wrong’

https://apple.news/AWvPXyT8WTVOs5byQvVk-3Q

Reply on Twitter 1640408084093779989 Retweet on Twitter 1640408084093779989 1 Like on Twitter 1640408084093779989 3 Twitter 1640408084093779989
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.