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

Tucker & Fudge on Picketing Law in B.C.

by David Doorey February 23, 2010
written by David Doorey February 23, 2010

Two of Canada’s top labour law scholars, Judy Fudge of U. Victoria and Eric Tucker of Osgoode Hall Law School, have published an interesting study on the history of the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s treatment of labour picketing.  It’s called “Everyone Knows What a Picket Line Means’: Picketing Before the British Columbia Court of Appeal”, available here for free download. It paints a picture of a divided Court, but one dominated by judges who held very low regard for the benefits of labour picketing.

In the first hundred years, the BCCA considered thirty-eight picketing cases.  These resulted in eight union victories and two split decisions.  In twenty-eight cases the union was the appellant, and it lost outright 70 percent of the time.  Employers were the appellants in ten cases and won eight, an 80 percent success rate.  In some ways, the numbers speak for themselves and reflect the strength and consistency of the beliefs of a large majority of the BCCA judges who sat on such cases that picketing was inherently coercive–it had a signalling effect–and that the privilege to trade was of significantly greater social value than the privilege of workers to act collectively.  However, what the numbers do not reveal is (1) the internal opposition of a minority of judges, particularly in the first sixty years of the court’s history, to the restrictive approach adopted by the majority and (2) the signs of a possible shift in recent years.

The ‘possible shift’ referred to in the last sentence refers in part to recent decisions of Justice Ian Donald, an ex-union side labour lawyer.  I was co-counsel (with David Blair) for the union in one those cases, called Fletcher Challenge from 1998.
The B.C. Supreme Court had issued an injunction in that case after a B.C. Gas employee showed up at a picket line, and when handed a letter from the picket captain indicating that the union did not grant him permission to cross the line, he thanked the picketers, returned to his truck, and drove away.  I was amazed when the Supreme Court judge ruled that the picketers had committed a tort by asking the B.C. Gas employee to respect the picket line and ordered a wide sweeping injunction restricting picketing.   At the Court of Appeal, Donald wrote a scathing decision overturning that lower court ruling and noting that asking people to respect a picket line is precisely the point of the picket line, and it is not a tort just because someone decides not to cross the picket line.  Read his ruling, it’s interesting.
Fudge and Tucker review this decision and many others, and then provide context and some explanations of the very one-sided and narrow approach to picketing taken by the BC judges.  I know a good number of B.C. labour lawyers read this blog occasionally.  Do any of you have insight into this issue, and the findings and conclusions of Professors Fudge and Tucker?

1 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
Should the Province Make the TTC an "Essential Service"?
next post
Ontario Politicians Push to Ban Exercise of a Fundamental Human Rights

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 ·
6h

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 145 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 429 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
11h

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 86 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 245 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.