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

University of Windsor's Latest Tactics Raise Intriguing Legal Questions

by David Doorey July 8, 2014
written by David Doorey July 8, 2014

As I noted last week, the University of Windsor threatened to impose new terms and conditions of employment on its unionized faculty if a deal wasn’t reached by 12.01 a.m. on  July 8.  That date has now passed, but the employer has apparently decided to wait.  I was curious to see if the employer would carry through with that threat.  It might still.  But as more facts trickle out, this situation becomes more intriguing to us labour law geeks.  I’m sure that the University has top notch labour lawyers advising them.  But let’s ponder, as we do on this blog, whether the University might have crossed a legal line.
I noted in the earlier post that the law permits an employer in a lawful lockout position, as U. of

Legal Questions Arising from Windsor's Latest Tactics

Legal Questions Arising from Windsor’s Latest Tactics


Windsor is, to unilaterally change working conditions.  That’s because the collective agreement has expired and so has the statutory ‘freeze’, the law that prohibits unilateral changes to working conditions during bargaining and prior to the legal strike and lockout date.
However, the Section 17 duty to bargain still applies, even during this period.  That much was made clear in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Caimaw v. Paccar of Canada way back in 1989.  In addition, as I noted in my last post, although the ‘freeze’ has been lifted, other parts of the Labour Relations Act governing the employer remain in effect, including (in addition to the duty to bargain): the Section 70 prohibition on employers interfering with the administration of a union.

Since the University of Windsor is legally required to bargain with WUFA, do you think if could unilaterally change terms of employment that have never been proposed or bargained over with WUFA?

I’ve been told that the employer never proposed some of the items on its list of changes it threatened to make unilaterally. That seems like a logical assumption when we read the list of items on the employer’s list,  but I don’t know for sure what has been discussed.  So I will deal with this a hypothetical labour law exam question.
Let’s assume that the employer never proposed to stop collecting unions dues, paying insurance premiums, making pension contributions, and respecting the grievance procedure.  Assume further that the first the union hears of this plan to unilaterally change these terms is via a letter sent directly to employees, and not the union.  [Again, I am now told that is what happened, but I don’t know for sure].

If those are your facts, then it would seem the University has some legal problems, doesn’t it?  Or do you think that Windsor is staying within the bounds of its legal rights with its’ latest tactics?

In essence, you would have an employer who announces a surprise set of changes to working conditions directly to the employees (bypassing the union), about which there has been no collective bargaining.
My view has always been, based on a reading of the case law on unilateral changes by employers, that the employer has to discuss the changes and bargain about them before it can just impose them on the bargaining unit employees.  For example, read carefully the language of the Supreme Court in Paccar, or OLRB decisions such as Neenah Paper Company of Canada or Devilbiss Canada Ltd (not on CanLII).  The facts are different in those cases, but the language of the decisions certainly seem to me to suggest the writers assumed that an employer would have to propose and bargain proposed changes before imposing them.  The idea is captured in this OLRB passage from Hamilton Automatic Vending Company (1988) (para. 12):

“we note that the expiry of the “freeze” period …  would not in itself make a change lawful. Even after the freeze period expires, a change in terms and conditions of employment may constitute a breach of section 17 (duty to bargain) of the Act if the change has not first been made the subject of discussion at the bargaining table: see DeVilbiss (Canada) Limited, [1976] OLRB Rep Mar. 49, particularly at paragraph 17.

What do you think?  Could the University of Windsor impose terms on its faculty that have never been bargained with WUFA at the bargaining table?
Another intriguing legal issue arising from the facts (as I understand them so far):  I presume that WUFA has proposed the inclusion of a typical union dues checkoff clause.  If so, then by operation of Section 47, “there shall be included in the collective agreement ” such a clause.  The employer cannot provoke a strike or lockout over this issue.  The dues clause goes in.  One of the unilateral changes I see on the employer’s threatened list is to unilaterally stop collecting union dues.  If, as we know to be true, the duty to bargain with the union still governs the employer, and it would be illegal for the employer to refuse the union’s request to include a dues clause, can an employer actually unilaterally impose a change consisting of the repeal of dues collection?   Or would that be a violation of the duty to bargain?
These are really great questions for a labour law class.  However, for the faculty involved at Windsor, this is real life with real consequences.  I hope we never have to find out the answer to these question and instead the parties can find a way to reach an acceptable settlement.
Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.

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
Sneak Peek at Cover of My Forthcoming Book: The Law of Work
next post
City of Guelph Locks Out Its' Bus Drivers

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·
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.