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

TTC Union Promises Not to Strike… Hmmm

by David Doorey February 3, 2011
written by David Doorey February 3, 2011

The TTC union has promised not to strike in the upcoming round of collective bargaining if the City and Province agree to spend some time studying the proposal to make the TTC an “essential service”.   Here is the Star story on this.
The union and employer are in a strange situation right now.  They are starting bargaining, but they don’t know what collective bargaining model will apply to them.  Right now, the usual Labour Relations Act rules apply so that the workers have a right to strike and the employer a right to lockout if bargaining fails.   Both the union and the employer like this model, but some politicians at the City of Toronto level want to change it.  The Provincial Liberals have suggested they might change the rules and declare all, or some, of the TTC workers “essential”, or perhaps all public transit in Ontario, or just transit in Toronto, or just in big cities …   I have no idea what the plan is, since neither the Premier nor the Minister of Labour have explained the government’s position clearly.  I have discussed all this before on several occasions. This creates a lot of ambiguity, which isn’t usually a good thing in collective bargaining.
There is nothing particularly unusual about a union agreeing  not to strike.   In the Federal sector, the  Public Service Labour Relations Act grants the unions a right to select whether they want to be bound by a strike/lockout model or an interest arbitration model in the event of a strike (see s. 103)  Last I heard, unions chose arbitration over 70% of the time.  In the private sector, there are lots of examples of unions agreeing with employers to refer disputes to arbitration rather than go the strike/lockout route.
The Labour Relations Act permits an agreement to refer bargaining disputes to an interest arbitrator, in Section 40.  The key to Section 40 is that both sides agree.  In this case, the union is offering to forego the right to strike, although it seems to be attaching conditions to that offer  targeted at politicians–spend some time in consultation and discussion about essential services legislation.  The union is correct in noting that the province has not to date invested much time or resources in meaningful consultations about the City’s wish for a ban on the right of transit workers to strike.  If the union removed the conditions and just offered to refer a dispute to an arbitration, and the employer agreed, then, puff!, there would be no strike.  A Section 40 agreement would be legally enforceable.
But here’s a thought:

Could  the union’s proposal to forego the right to strike if the government engages in meaningful consultation  on the question of banning all strikes by TTC workers  part of the process of preparing for a Constitutional challenge against whatever legislation is passed?

Recall the Supreme Court of Canada in B.C. Health Services got pretty pissed off at the B.C. government when it took away workers’ collective bargaining rights without any meaningful consultation.  In that case, the Court recognized a new constitutional right to collective bargaining and to consultation, and  struck down as unconstitutional B.C. legislation that restricted that  right.
Here, we have a Provincial government that has already said publicly that they are in a rush to drive through legislation that would undermine workers’ rights.  Remember the Minister saying last week:  “We’re going to be acting pretty quickly on these discussions.” Today, mere moments after the union’s offer to defer a right to strike in exchange for more consultations, the TTC Chair told the union to take a hike.  The politicians’ apparent rush to restrict workers legal rights, without meaningful consultation, could prove useful for the union’s constitutional challenge, should they decide to launch one.
And remember that unions are looking for the right opportunity to argue that “freedom of association” in Section 2(d) of the Charter includes a right to strike.  A broad-brush law that bans all strikes by anyone who works in public transit may just prove to be a good test case.  Certainly such a law would run afoul of Canada’s responsibilities under ILO Convention 87, and the Supreme Court has said that Section 2(d) should provide at least the level of protection afforded by that Convention.  If the Charter does protect a right to strike, do you think a law banning ticket collectors from striking could satisfy the “minimum impairment” test under Section 1 of the Charter?
Do you think this proposal by the TTC union is the beginning of a paper trail that could end up in a Constitutional challenge?

2 comments
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
What if an Arbitrator and the Human Rights Tribunal Disagree About Whether an Employer Legally Dismissed an Employee?
next post
The TTC and "Work to Rule"

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 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
6h

@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 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
7h

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·
8h

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.