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)
Law of Work Archive

The TTC and "Work to Rule"

by David Doorey February 7, 2011
written by David Doorey February 7, 2011

TTC bashing has become a sport for Toronto’s media these days.  Star columnist Rosie DiManno takes it to new heights today, in a rambling rant about how a driver wouldn’t move up two feet for her at a bus-stop.  This is what passes for front page news in today’s Toronto!
The media are very keen on supporting the push to declare TTC employees “essential”, so that they can’t strike.  Rosie would like more:  she’d like the law to somehow make TTC employees be nicer and more considerate to her and others. Generalizing relentlessly in the media that every incident of poor behaviour by a TTC employee is the fault of ALL TTC EMPLOYEES and the union that represents them is very unlikely to have that result, of course.  It’s more likely to make  the workers feel they are under siege and to make many of them angrier.  So too will the proposed move by the province to ban the right to strike for all TTC employees (and apparently only the TTC, and not other transit systems, though I’m still not sure about this).
In fact, the ATU (the union that represents TTC employees) leadership has suggested that “work to rules” may be in store if the province bans their right to strike. What does that mean?  Can workers who can’t legally strike do that?
The Origins of the Ban on Work to Rule Actions
The origin of the legal treatment of “work to rules” lies in one of my favourite labour law cases of all time:  Secretary of State for Employment v. ASLEF, No. 2, a 1972 decision of the British Court of Appeal that included the famous judge, Lord Denning.   It involved British railway workers and their unions.  During bargaining for improved working conditions, the unions directed their members to “strictly observe” the employer’s rulebook.  The problem was that when the workers obeyed the employer’s rulebook to the letter, the entire train system screeched to a halt.
For example, one rule required that drivers “satisfy themselves that the engine is in proper order” before driving the train.  A driver could take some time to be “satisfied” or else be “satisfied” very quickly.  If all drivers take longer to “satisfy” themselves, the train system would become hopelessly delayed.  That is what happened in Britain.
So the matter ends up in court.  The specific legal question before the court was whether a vote of employees on an employer offer could be ordered.  But a vote could only be ordered under the British law if there had been a “breach of contract of employment“.   The unions argued, “how can there be a breach of contract when we are complying with the employers’ own rules”?

So Lord Denning and the other judges had to deal with this legal question:

“Can complying with your employer’s rules be a breach of your employment contract?”

The Court said it could.  Read how Lord Denning gets to this conclusion:

“Those rules must be construed reasonably…  It is only when they are construed unreasonably that the railway systems grinds to a halt.   It is, I should think, clearly a breach of contract first to construe rules unreasonably, and then to put that unreasonable construction into practice….  The meaning of the instruction [to strictly obey the rule book] is not in doubt.   The instruction was intended to mean, and it was understood to mean, ‘Keep the rules of your employment to the very letter, but, whilst doing so, do your very utmost to disrupt the undertaking’.  Is that a breach of contract?…
If [an employee], with others, takes steps wilfully to disrupt the undertaking, to produce chaos so that it will not run as it should, then each one who is party to those steps is guilty of a breach of his contract.  It is no answer for any one them to say ‘I am only obeying the rule book’…  That would be all very well if done in good faith without any wilful disruption of services; but what makes it wrong is the object with which it is done.

So, in other words, what determines whether complying with employer rules is lawful or a breach of contract is the “motive” of the workers in complying with the rules.  If it is to harm the employer’s economic interests, then it is a breach of contract.
As a result of this decision, an implied term has been read into all employment contracts in Britain and Canada that requires employees, at all times, to act in furtherance of the employer’s economic interest.  This case is often held up as an example of how the courts have creatively crafted decisions to advance employers’ interests over workers’, since the court completely ignored the fact that the workers here were trying to advance their own economic interests.  However, the Court ruled that the employers’ interests must trump the employees.
Modern Rules Governing Work to Rules
The reasoning in that British case made it into our Labour Relations Act.  The definition of a “strike” in Section 1 of the Labour Relations Act (Ontario), for example, reads:

“strike” includes …  a slow-down or other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output

Can you see how this definition incorporates Lord Denning’s reasoning?  It means that, if the TTC drivers agree to follow the collective agreement, or employer rules, to the letter for the purpose of slowing down TTC services, then this would constitute a strike.  And if those workers are not legally entitled to strike, then it would be an illegal strike.  In that case, the Labour Board or a court would likely order an end to the work to rule if the Employer were to file a complaint.
We will keep an eye on all of this.  See, isn’t labour law fascinating?

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
TTC Union Promises Not to Strike… Hmmm
next post
When Did Having No Job Security Become a Virtue?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

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

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 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.