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

Why Union Ordered to Pay $50,000 Damages for an Unlawful Strike

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

Canada has one of the most restrictive rights to strike in the advanced economic world.  One example of the very restrictive nature of the right to strike here is the prohibition on “midterm” strikes or lockouts, which goes back to the early days of modern labour legislation and Prime Minister MacKenzie King in the 1940s.  This prohibition says that there can be no strike or lockout during the period in which a collective agreement is in force.  All disputes must be sent to a labour arbitrator instead.  That was a distinctly Canadian addition.
The result of this is that it is a violation of labour relations legislation for a union to strike during a collective agreement.  And since Canadian legislation also reads into every collective agreement a term prohibiting strikes and lockouts, such a strike is also a breach of the collective agreement.

Therefore, if workers engage in an illegal strike during a collective agreement, they are in breach of the collective agreement. The employer can file a grievance as a result.  What remedy do you think the employer would be asking for?

Money.   If the employees shut down production, then an employer may suffer financial loss.  I say “may”, because sometimes a short work stoppage will not cause the employer any financial harm.  For example, the employees may be able to make up any lost production when they return to work.  However, as a recent arbitration decision reminds us, unions mights be ordered to pay damages even if there is no direct lost production caused by an illegal strike.
The Canada Post Arbitration Award Ordering Union to Pay $35,000 Punitive Damages
The case involved illegal “midterm” strikes at 3 Canada Post facilities out west  in 2008.   The decision is here, and it was written by a leading arbitrator named Michel Picher.
The strikes lasted between one hour and two days.  The union argued that in the end there was no harm done to the employer’s production at all, and therefore that it was not a strike at all.  Picher rejected that argument, noting that during the period of the strike, no work was done.  That was a strike.  Moreover, since union stewards were involved in encouraging and participating in the strike, the Union itself could be held liable for the strike.
The most interesting part of the Award relates to the damages.
At one facility, the strike caused no financial or production harm, since all the mail was eventually delivered and no additional costs were incurred.  However, at the other two facilities the employer incurred additional costs caused by the illegal strike in terms of additional overtime to deal with the backlog and travel costs to transport an employer rep to the strike site.
Amount ordered for production and travel costs incurred by employer: $2652.
Does the employer actually have to suffer a net loss from the strike? The Union argued that the employer was not out of pocket at all, since it saved more than these costs by not having to pay the workers for the time there were on strike.  Picher rejected that argument, noting that the fact that employees “chose to forgo their wages by engaging in an unlawful strike” does not change the fact that the employer absorbed exceptional costs as a result of the strike.  Picher wrote that “there was no principled basis upon which the unlawful conduct of the employees and the union can be viewed as mitigating the employer’s damages”.
Does the Union have to pay the employer’s legal costs in the arbitration? Yes.  Legal Costs:  $12, 882.
Can the Arbitrator Order Punitive Costs Against the Union? Yes.
The Employer asked for over $200,000 in additional “punitive damages”.  Punitive damages are damages not related to actual financial loss, but that are intended to punish the wrongdoer and to act as a deterrent for future breaches.  Picher rules that it is well-settled that arbitrators have the authority to order punitive damages for breach of a collective agreement, although that power should be used sparingly.   Here, the lockout received substantial media attention, that can be assumed to have created a negative business image of Canada Post, something intended by the strikers.  In the end, Picher orders $35,000 in punitive damages against the union, an amount he believed sent a clear message to the Union and would act as a sufficient deterrent against future illegal strikes.

Total Damages Union Must pay Canada Post:  $50, 535.

Is that a fair outcome?
Here, the union officials were directly involved in organizing the strike.  Do you think the outcome would/should be different if union members engage in an unlawful strike without any direct involvement of Union officials?
 

2 comments
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
We're Hiring. Deadline is October 31st.
next post
What Does Minister of Labour Mean When She Says the "Process" Not Working at Air Canada

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 ·
4h

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 132 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 392 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
10h

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 82 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 235 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

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.