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 nonunion employees have no way to exercise their Charter right to 'Collective Bargaining'?

by David Doorey February 15, 2012
written by David Doorey February 15, 2012

Update:  I’ve received some interesting comments and emails about this post, so I am posting some of that discussion at the bottom of the post, in addition to the comment sections.  Thanks for the comments and analysis.
I’m working on some papers for two conferences I have coming up at Western and then Osgoode Hall, and one issue I’m sorting through is the current state of the law as regards to nonunion employee associations and the Charter right to collective bargaining that the Supreme Court has been developing in recent years.  While its on my mind, I thought I would throw out an issue for consideration.
Most Canadian workers have no practical or safe way to exercise their Charter right to collective bargaining as developed by the Supreme Court in recent decisions.  Does that mean that the legal system is deficient?
Imagine this is a question on a law school labour law exam:

There is a Starbucks store with 50 employees.  It is nonunion.  Some of the employees decide they would like to bargain collectively with the employer about terms of employment, but they do not want to join a “real” union.   Instead, they would like to form an employee association and elect a representative to speak for the employees in discussions with the employer.  In fact, surveys show that a large majority of workers want just this: collective employee representation, but a less adversarial form than traditional union-management relations.  Of the 50 employees, 25 are interested in this idea and form a new Starbucks Employee Committee, and they elect John Smith to be their spokesperson.  John approaches the owner, gives him a list with the 25 names, tells him that he has been elected as the representative, and asks to begin a process of bargaining over working conditions.  The owner responds by firing all 25 employees, giving them the required amount of notice required by their employment contracts.
Has the employer violated any law?

What do you think?
Some factors to consider:

  • If these workers were agricultural workers in Ontario, then the answer is easy.  The employer would be in violation of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, the statute the Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional in the case Ontario v. Fraser.  That statute provides protection against discrimination for joining an employee association and attempting to engage in collective representations with their employer.  Notably, the AEPA protects a right of workers to make collective representations to employers regardless of the size of the collective and regardless of whether the association the workers joined is a recognized “trade union”.  In other words, unlike collective bargaining under the normal Labour Relations Act model, the AEPA does not envision majority unions or even “trade unions” at all.  There can be multiple employee associations, each representing only a small percentage of the workforce, and no unions.
  • However, Starbucks employees are not agricultural workers, so the AEPA does not apply.  The process is governed by the Labour Relations Act.  The LRA protects employees who are trying to organize a “trade union”.   A trade union, as interpreted under that statute, is a real trade union–like the Canadian Auto Workers or the United Food and Commercial Workers–with a constitution, an elected executive, et cetera. In our exam question, there is no “trade union” on the scene at all.  Therefore, it is hard to see how the unfair labour practice sections, like section 70, 72, and 76 apply, which all protect employees from discrimination on the basis that they support a “trade union” or are a member of one, of because they are trying to organize a “trade union”.
  • If the Labour Relations Act does not prohibit the Starbucks employer from firing employees for trying to exercise their Charter right to engage in collective bargaining with their employer, and the AEPA doesn’t apply, then is there any other law that makes the dismissals unlawful?

Analysis
My own belief is that Starbucks has not violated any Ontario law.  Am I wrong about that?
If I am correct, then this shows how strange our approach to protecting freedom of association is under our Supreme Court’s vision of the Charter. The Court has told us that Section 2(d) of the Charter (Freedom of Association) protects: a right of citizens to form and join associations, to make collective representations through that association to their employer, and to have their employer consider those representations and discuss them in good faith (Fraser).  It may also now include a right of workers to strike, if the recent Saskatchewan ruling holds up on appeal.
However, as the law now exists in Ontario, employees can be dismissed for forming an employee association and seeking to exercise their Charter right to engage in collective bargaining, unless the association they join is a recognized “trade union”, or they are agricultural workers.  Moreover, in Ontario, there is presently no legal mechanism available for workers governed by the Labour Relations Act (most people) to enforce the Charter right that requires employers to listen and discuss collective representations of employees in good faith, unless the employees have joined a “trade union” that has been certified (or voluntarily recognized by the employer).  In that case, the statutory duty to bargain in good faith would apply.   But a “trade union” can only get certified if a majority of employees vote for this. This means that the 25 Starbucks employees who wish to make collective representations to their employer have no legal means to make their employer respect their Charter right to collective bargaining.
So, to summarize, while the 25 Starbucks employees have a Charter right to associate into an employee association and make collective representations to their employer, and to have those representations listened to by Starbucks and discussed in good faith, and (possibly) to go on strike, in fact, they can be terminated for trying to exercise these rights.  Even if the 25 workers join a “trade union”, neither they nor their union have any legal means to force Starbucks to recognize their Charter right to collective bargaining, since the “trade union” could not get certified with only 25/50 employees supporting the union.  In short, Starbucks is completely free to ignore its employees Charter rights to deal with their employer collectively.
That is a pretty weak Charter right, don’t you think?
The question created by the Supreme Court in Dunmore is whether the exclusion of workers from a protective labour relations regime has the effect of “substantially interfering” with the exercise of the Charter right to collective bargaining.  Agricultural workers have a protected right to form minority employee associations and make representations to their employers, but oddly, workers covered by the LRA do not.  Does that mean we could now turn Dunmore on its head, and argue that that the exclusion of retail workers from the AEPA’s protection for non-majority collective bargaining ‘substantially interferes’ with their right to form employee associations and make collective representations outside of the formal majority unionism model envisioned by the LRA?
An obvious fix for this solution would be to extend the framework in the AEPA to all workers governed by the Labour Relations Act.  That would mean that employers would be restricted from retaliating against employees who form associations or seek to make collective representations, and would need to bargain collectively in good faith (within the limited scope of that requirement defined by the Court) with any group of employees that approaches them, regardless of whether a “trade union” is involved and even if the association does not represent a majority of the employees.  If the Supreme Court follows its own direction to interpret Section 2(d) to provide at least the level of protection provided under ILO Convention 87, then we would be headed also towards recognizing a right of employees to strike, even when they are not represented by a “trade union” that has been certified according to majority rules.
In short, are we heading towards a model that provides the 25 Starbucks workers a right to collective bargaining and strike, even though they are not members of a certified trade union?  Seems a stretch, but the logic of recent Supreme Court decisions is consistent with this path.

Discussion
Chris:
A lot of the recent US Labour Law decisions on social media focus on the NLRA’s protection of concerted activity, even when there’s no union involved. I’ve become interested in this topic, and I wonder why the idea of protecting concerted activity in non-union environments has not been imported into Canada. Amending Canadian legislation to protect concerted activity in a manner similar to the NLRA might be an answer that protects the Charter right without creating “real” minority unions. I don’t know. I’m just beginning to think about this topic.
OR (a more limited proposal) Why not interpret the common law to be consistent with Charter values and Canada’s international law obligations by characterizing dismissal for engaging in collective activity as bad faith dismissal, attracting additional damages? Or interpret the common law to be consistent with Charter values/international law by implying a term into the common law employment contract that employees cannot be dismissed for associational activity?

Julia:
It seems arguable based on Health Services (i.e. paras. 97, 98, 101, 104) that if this was a government employer, to which the Charter applied, the members of the employee association would have a cause of action under s. 2(d) of the Charter, against the government employer for breaching its duty to recognise the association and negotiate in good faith with the employees – which, as we know from Fraser (i.e. paras. 40-41) inheres in 2(d) independent of any statutory apparatus (i.e. statutory certification).
Its obviously more difficult for the private sector employees because the Charter doesn’t govern the actions of the private sector employer(note: unless they were here in Saskatchewan, where freedom of association is actually guaranteed to these workers under the Human Rights Code (s.6)). I would suggest that the Starbucks employees would have a common law claim in wrongful dismissal, to the extent that a Court might be prepared to agree that it was improper to fire the employees for exercising their common law, Charter right to associate, based perhaps on the “Charter values” argument established in Dophin Delivery [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573 and Pepsi Cola [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156 recently applied by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32. How hard would it be to convince a court that this constitutes “bad faith” or “harsh” conduct that would justify an award of Keays-type “moral” damages?
David (Me):
Thanks Chris and Juliana, I agree that firing someone for trying to exercise their Charter rights could be considered bad faith in the manner of dismissal under the Keays/Wallace analysis, but that doesn’t get you much. Because of Keays, the workers would have to prove actual physical/medical harm resulted because they were fired for exercising their Charter right in order to get anything. But even then, they have still lost their job, which is really the point I’m making. What good is a Charter right to associate in order to influence employment practices is the employer can just fire you for trying to exercise it. Seems pretty stupid. It seems to me that, after Fraser and B.C. Health, it must be the case that the state must provide protections to enable nonunion workers to associate and make collective representations without fear of being dismissed. In other words, while the state needn’t provide all workers with the full gambit of rights in the LRA, all workers must be given at least what the AEPA provides agricultural workers. Otherwise, there is no effective right for nonunion workers to do any of the things that the Charter now says they have a right to do. Governments should follow the Court’s statement in B.C. Health that “labour policy“, in addition to common law doctrine, should reflect Charter values.
Bob:
Harcourt, M. and Haynes, P. (2011). Accommodating minority unionism: Does the New Zealand experience provide options for Canadian law reform? Canadian labour & employment law journal. 16(1): 51-80. provides an interesting discussion of minority unionism.
Seems to me the issue is that the Ontario LRA defines union narrowly. In this scenario, is it in violation of s.2(d) of the Charter because it fails to protect legitimate collective activity? Not that such a finding (potentially years in the future) helps the 25 employees who got canned in your example.

 
 

6 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
Anatomy of a Work Stoppage?: Workers Ratify New 4 Year Collective Agreement
next post
How Does a Bay Street Law Firm Make a List of Most Diverse Employers?

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 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

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

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
1h

Looks great!

I took an international labor law course at LSE/Kings College taught by Keith Ewing, Brian Bercusson, Aileen McColgan, and Paul Davies.

Incredible course. And so important.

Desiree LeClercq@LeclercqDesiree

Excited to teach my new #internationallaborlaw course critically considering how labor rights are designed & enforced. The class balances decolonial theory w/ practical experiences. My syllabus (with names redacted) below. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1556698559650603008Retweet on Twitter 1556698559650603008Like on Twitter 15566985596506030084Twitter 1556698559650603008
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
1h

Remembering time I spoke at @SteelworkersCA conference. I joined International President Leo Gerard on an elevated platform stage.

Back leg of chair was off back of stage. Sat down and fell backyards off stage until Leo caught me, pulled me back up, muttering “fucking lawyers”

United Steelworkers #EverybodysUnion@SteelworkersCA

International President Tom Conway takes the stage for his keynote address 🔥🔥🔥 - a big welcome to the five thousand Steelworkers, together for the first time since the pandemic! #EverybodysUnion #1u 2

Reply on Twitter 1556696632082812929Retweet on Twitter 1556696632082812929Like on Twitter 15566966320828129293Twitter 1556696632082812929
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
1h

Yes I’m sure they would like to repeal human rights legislation but enact a new Freedom Protection Act that protects ‘rights’ they want, like anti-vaxer rights.

Sean O'Donnell@SJOLegal

@TheLawofWork Given that the Ford Government has stymied the HRTO for years, I don't think this crowd will see any joy through that avenue.

Reply on Twitter 1556695655120347141Retweet on Twitter 15566956551203471411Like on Twitter 15566956551203471413Twitter 1556695655120347141
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.