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

What Does Minister of Labour Mean When She Says the "Process" Not Working at Air Canada

by David Doorey October 11, 2011
written by David Doorey October 11, 2011

The unionized flight attendants have strongly rejected a proposed settlement bargained by the union’s bargaining committee, for the second time. This means there may be a strike at Air Canada later this week, albeit probably a short one given that the Conservative government has said it will introduce back to work legislation yet again once Parliament resumes.
The Minister of Labour said something curious yesterday, as reported in this Ottawa Citizen story. Here is what she said:

“There have been two full rounds of collective bargaining resulting in tentative agreements recommended by the bargaining committee. In each case the membership has rejected the recommendation of their team. It is clear there is a breakdown in the process contemplated in the Canada Labour Code. “

That quote raised some eyebrows.   She also suggested the government would consider making changes to the Canada Labour Code?  What does she mean?
I have no idea what sorts of changes she has in mind.  I guess the government could try to ban all strikes in the Federal sector, but I doubt even the Tories would try to go that far.  Nor do I have any idea what she means when she says that the process contemplated in the Code is not working.  Quite the contrary.  It is working exactly as intended.

The reason we have a legal requirement for unions to take a proposed settlement to the membership for a ratification vote is because politicians don’t trust union leaders and bargaining committees to decide themselves whether a proposed deal is a reasonable one.   The requirement to conduct a ratification vote is intended to ensure a proper democratic process in collective bargaining.  It is an idea pushed by conservative politicians, not unions. If employees don’t like what the union has been able to bargain, they can vote against the settlement and  send that committee back to the bargaining table.  If the employer says it has nothing more to offer, then the legislation has a solution for that. It is called a strike and a lockout.  That has been our system for over half a century, through both Conservative and Liberal governments, and in the vast majority of cases, it leads to settlements without a work stoppage.  The threat of a strike or lockout steers the parties towards a deal most of the time, but not in every case.

All that has happened in the Air Canada flight attendant case is that the government doesn’t like the outcome of the democratic process.  The Tories don’t like that the workers voted against the proposed agreement.  They don’t like that the workers voted to strike if an acceptable deal is not reached.  That’s the trouble with democracy.   Sometimes if you give people a choice, they don’t decide the way you’d prefer.  But that has never been a good argument to eliminate democracy and replace it with something else.  Has it?
Conservative governments are usually big fans of mandatory employee votes in unionized workplaces because they envision union leaders as inherently oppressive and undemocratic.  The state needs to ensure employees have a voice, since otherwise, they believe, union leaders will abuse their authority.  Here, the employees have spoken.  They think the employer’s offer is inadequate. They think a strike will pressure the employer to offer more. They have a better read on that than you or I, the media pundits, or the proverbial guy at Tim Hortons.
The workers did exactly what the legislation tells them to do when they don’t like a proposed settlement:  vote against it and go on strike.  There’s been no breakdown in the process contemplated by the Canada Labour Code.   That process has worked exactly as designed.   Perhaps Raitt wants to do away with ratification votes and allow a union bargaining committee to implement a collective agreement against the employees’ wishes.
Do you think that would be a better system?
What do you think Raitt has in mind when she talks about fixing the Canada Labour Code to deal with situations such as that occurring at Air Canada?
How would you change the law, if you think it is broken?

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
Why Union Ordered to Pay $50,000 Damages for an Unlawful Strike
next post
The Fed's Mysterious "Reference" to Prevent an Air Canada Strike

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 330 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

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

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
14h

I think it’s a $115 Bored Ape NFT.

Reply on Twitter 1525448243005505536Retweet on Twitter 15254482430055055361Like on Twitter 152544824300550553610Twitter 1525448243005505536
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
13 May

Update!

Our Ukrainian family is on a plane from Warsaw to Toronto!!!!

Thanks to everyone who contributed to our GoFundMe campaign. The scary part is over. The hard part of getting the 10 of them set up in Toronto now begins. As always, any support is greatly appreciated.

David J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork

Friends, we're trying to get a family out of #Ukraine including 7 children ages 9-22 & their moms. They're sheltered in a small house 3 hrs from Polish border. If they can make it to Poland, we'll fly them to Toronto, find a home.

If you can help at all:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/mariyas-ukrainian-family-fundraiser

Reply on Twitter 1525237013045252096Retweet on Twitter 1525237013045252096Like on Twitter 152523701304525209611Twitter 1525237013045252096
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
13 May

Question haunting me for years: You’re stranded on an island. You can take entire recording catalog of 1 male & 1 female singer. Who do you take?

After struggles, I have landed on David Bowie for the male.

Can’t decide on the female! Who would you take?

Reply on Twitter 1525224170266980352Retweet on Twitter 15252241702669803521Like on Twitter 15252241702669803522Twitter 1525224170266980352
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.