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

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
2h

Looks great!

I took an international labor law course at LSE/Kings College taught by Keith Ewing, Brian Bercusson, Aileen McColgan, and Paul Davies.

Incredible course. And so important.

Desiree LeClercq@LeclercqDesiree

Excited to teach my new #internationallaborlaw course critically considering how labor rights are designed & enforced. The class balances decolonial theory w/ practical experiences. My syllabus (with names redacted) below. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1556698559650603008Retweet on Twitter 15566985596506030081Like on Twitter 15566985596506030086Twitter 1556698559650603008
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
2h

Remembering time I spoke at @SteelworkersCA conference. I joined International President Leo Gerard on an elevated platform stage.

Back leg of chair was off back of stage. Sat down and fell backyards off stage until Leo caught me, pulled me back up, muttering “fucking lawyers”

United Steelworkers #EverybodysUnion@SteelworkersCA

International President Tom Conway takes the stage for his keynote address 🔥🔥🔥 - a big welcome to the five thousand Steelworkers, together for the first time since the pandemic! #EverybodysUnion #1u 2

Reply on Twitter 1556696632082812929Retweet on Twitter 1556696632082812929Like on Twitter 15566966320828129295Twitter 1556696632082812929
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
2h

Yes I’m sure they would like to repeal human rights legislation but enact a new Freedom Protection Act that protects ‘rights’ they want, like anti-vaxer rights.

Sean O'Donnell@SJOLegal

@TheLawofWork Given that the Ford Government has stymied the HRTO for years, I don't think this crowd will see any joy through that avenue.

Reply on Twitter 1556695655120347141Retweet on Twitter 15566956551203471411Like on Twitter 15566956551203471413Twitter 1556695655120347141
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
  • 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.