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

Trump Hotel Employees Win Union Drive After Creative Campaign

by David Doorey May 4, 2015
written by David Doorey May 4, 2015

There’s a good story in the Star today about the successful efforts of workers at Toronto’s Trump hotel to win union certification.  UNITE Here Local 75 is the union.  The union won a certification vote and collective bargaining will now start towards a first collective agreement.  There’s some interesting aspects to this campaign.
The piece describes the ups and downs of a typical service sector union organizing drive.  In my former life, I was involved as a lawyer in many such campaigns, including campaigns at Walmart, Canadian Tire, and Tim Hortons, among others.  There is always a shadow of fear

Trump Hotel Employees Have Unionized

Trump Hotel Employees Have Unionized


that at any moment the employer will freak out, break the law, and start firing people or engage in other threats and intimidation to pressure workers to reject the union.  Rarely does an employer  (in the private sector at least) take the position that this decision is up to the employees and therefore it will just stay out of it.  Almost always the employer actively campaigns against the union and the law gives employers substantial tools to do so.  For example, employers in Ontario are permitted to force employees to attend ‘captive audience meetings’ during working hours to hear the employer speak about why unionization is a bad decision for them and use their access to the employees to distribute antiunion literature directly to employees.   The employers’ labour lawyers have a step by step rehearsed union avoidance response plan to guide employers through the process while staying within the legal rules.  Some employers nevertheless cross over that line, and so unfair labour practice complaints alleging illegal threats or reprisals during organizing campaigns are not uncommon.
To Go Transparent or Not?
Unions usually try to keep the campaign from the employer for as long as possible to discourage or delay the union avoidance process from starting.  They also usually try to hide the identity of employees who support the union for fear of reprisals.  It’s illegal for employers to punish a union supporter in any way, but it’s certainly preferable from the union’s perspective to avoid any nasty unfair labour practice litigation and a reprisal against a union supporter can stop the momentum of an organizing campaign in its tracks.  Therefore, the orthodoxy is that unions should hide the campaign from the employer for as long possible.
However,  I remember in a few campaigns, my advice and that of some union organizers was to go completely transparent. By telling the employer that there is a campaign and that these are the employees who support the union, you give those employees a form of special legal protection from retaliation.  Since the employer has been put on notice that Employee X is a union supporter, any employer decision that negatively affects Employee X will be immediately viewed with great suspicion by the labour board. The employer will not be able to say that they were unaware that X was a union supporter, and therefore must have very clear evidence that a decision negatively impacting Employee X has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he or she supports the union.
This appears to have been Local 75’s strategy at Trump. The Star story claims that pictures were put up at the work place with photos of employees who support the union.  The employer is alleged to have angrily ripped them down.
Card-Check Agreement
Another interesting twist in this campaign was the presence of a so-called card-check agreement:

In 2003, before the tower was built, Toronto city councillor Pam McConnell (open Pam McConnell’s policard), (Ward 28 Toronto Centre – Rosedale) sought and obtained a signed agreement that the Trump hotel would automatically allow union certification if a majority of workers in a bargaining unit signed union cards.

This practice of requiring hotels and casinos to agree to a card-check based certification process as a condition to obtaining political approval is a common phenomena in the US.   The idea is to by-pass the heated, contested union election process required by our labour relations legislation and instead have a private arbitrator determine if the union has the support of a majority of bargaining unit employees.  The arbitrator reviews union membership cards, compares the names to a list of employees provided by the employer, and if the union has card on behalf of some defined majority of employees, the employer ‘voluntarily recognizes” the union.  No government run vote is required.  Often these card-check agreements include also rules requiring employers to ‘remain neutral’, in other words, to not actively campaign against the union if a union campaign begins.  American unions have organized hundreds of thousands of new members using these agreements, because the American union certification laws are completely inept.
I wrote my LLM thesis at the London School of Economics back in 2001 on the legal issues that might arise if the American neutrality and card-check agreements crossed the border into Canada, something I predicted would happen as our governments continue their attack on collective bargaining rights.  The use of neutrality agreements seems to be growing in Canada, but they are still relatively rare, especially compared to the US.  That’s probably because our ‘quick vote’ certification model is still far superior for unions than the American model, which can take months or even years to hold a union vote.

If you are interested in the legal issues that arise in the Canadian context in regards to neutrality and card-check agreements, check out two pieces I’ve written on the subject:
From 2006, Neutrality Agreements: Bargaining in the Shadow of the State
From 2009, Six Questions About Neutrality Agreements (And Some Answers)

The twist in the Trump situation was that Trump management took the position that it could just ignore the deal brokered by Councillor McConnell, since it was bargained with a predecessor company.   That might be legally correct (think contract law privity of contract)–you’d have to read the actual agreement(s) to know for sure–but it certainly runs contrary to the spirit of what the city understood would happen if workers at the Trump tried to unionize. Nevertheless, the union decided to just go the normal route in the legislation and won anyways.
We will keep an eye on how bargaining goes.
Issues for Discussion
1.   If you were advising a union, would you recommend ‘outing’ your inside union organizers so that there can be no doubt that the employer is aware of the campaign and the employees’ support for it?   What are the risks and benefits of that strategy?
2. What are your thoughts on neutrality/card-check agreements?  Do you think unions should pursue them more aggressively?  Do you see any problems with these agreements?
 

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
Tory Senator Insults Order of Canada Recipient for Asking Why Unions Need Disclose More Than Charities
next post
A Primer on the Teacher's Strike Decision

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·
16m

FYI, the School of HRM at @yorkuniversity will be hiring up to 2 tenure-stream profs including possibly one at the Associate Professor level.

Jobs will be posted in fall for start July 1, 2023. If you know anyone in the market pass along.

https://www.yorku.ca/laps/shrm/

Reply on Twitter 1558834355442552832Retweet on Twitter 1558834355442552832Like on Twitter 1558834355442552832Twitter 1558834355442552832
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
14h

If one these dimwits was a Sacha Baron Cohen-like comedian playing the role of a Republican would any one notice?

PatriotTakes 🇺🇸@patriottakes

Marjorie Taylor Greene believes generating electricity from “wind turbines and solar panels” will result in the loss of air conditioning and home appliances.

Greene: “I like the lights on. I want to stay up later at night. I don’t want to have to go to bed when the sun sets.”

Reply on Twitter 1558630572783722497Retweet on Twitter 15586305727837224972Like on Twitter 15586305727837224974Twitter 1558630572783722497
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
16h

A student told me she is translating chapters of my book into Korean because she learned a lot and wants it as a reference but English is her second language.

Any Korean speakers out there? What does this say?

일의 법칙

Reply on Twitter 1558595466182393858Retweet on Twitter 1558595466182393858Like on Twitter 15585954661823938582Twitter 1558595466182393858
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.