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

York Region Cancels Contract with Struck Bus Service Provider: Lawful?

by David Doorey January 17, 2012
written by David Doorey January 17, 2012

Here’s an interesting legal case study.
York Region has contracted out its bus services to three corporations whose employees are unionized.  There has been a work stoppage at all three companies for much of this winter.  The workers have been trying to move closer to parity with other bus drivers in the GTA, but the employers won’t budge.  While the provincial Liberal government has banned work stoppages involving the TTC, it has ignored the work stoppage in Vaughn.
Yesterday, York Region announced it had cancelled the contract with one of the contractors and served notice on the other two. It claims there is a term in the contracts that allows the region to cancel the contracts if a work stoppage continues beyond 30 days.  The Region now intends to contract out the bus services to another contractor.  Voila.  No more work stoppage in York.

The union’s leader says this: “Whoever takes over the contract would have to negotiate with the ATU. The region can’t just change contractors like it changes underwear.”

Issue One:  Is he correct?  Will the New Bus Service Provider be Required to Bargain with the Union?
Interesting question, one that has baffled labour boards and courts for decades.   If a government contracts out work, then takes the work back, and then re-contracts it out, is it a “sale of business” within the meaning of Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act?  That section is designed to prevent workers from losing their collective agreement and union when their employer’s business is sold to another company.  If there has been a “disposition of the business”, then the successor employer steps into the shoes of the predecessor for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act.
However, determining when a disposition of all or part of business in the case of a transfer from one contractor to another is complicated.  The Supreme Court considered the issue in an old case called Bibeault (1988) [transfer of work from one subcontractor, through an intermediary, to another subcontractor is not a sale of business] and Town of Ajax (2000) [when Town took back in-house its bus services from a subcontractor, and hired many of the contractor’s drivers, it constituted a sale of business].  The OLRB has considered similar scenarios on a number of occasions, including in Northway Bus Lines [not a sale of business when school bus services moved from Company A to Company B after Company A goes out of business, even though Company B bought buses from Company A and hired some of A’s former employees].
This is one of the more complicated areas of labour law, and the decisions are highly fact sensitive. There isn’t enough information in the media reports to really assess what is happening in the York bus situation. What exactly happens to the work once it is transferred from the struck employer to the new contractor will also be relevant.  We will have to keep an eye on this situation to see if the Union challenges the move in some manner.
Do you think that the Region should be permitted to do this?
[Note that in the early 1990s, the NDP government in Ontario amended the Act to clarify that a sale of business occurs whenever “substantially similar services are subsequently provided at the premise under the direction of another employer.” That law was designed to preserve collective agreements when subcontracting services (like cleaners, food services, etc) moved from contractor to contractor.  The Mike Harris government repealed that law.]
Issue Two:   Has the Region Committed an Unfair Labour Practice?
The other interesting issue raised by this story is the contract term itself, and the timing of Region’s announcement that it has cancelled the contract and is considering doing the same to the other two companies. The union alleges that the Region is attempting to scare the crap out of the workers of the other two companies to accept whatever is being offered by their employers, or else lose their jobs.
That might indeed be the case.  The employees of the other companies know now that if the work stoppage does not end quickly, their jobs may be disappear.   Would this effect how your willingness to vote in favour of whatever offer the employer has on the table?
Perhaps.  But is it unlawful for the Region to send out a signal to the workers that the continuation of a work stoppage will lead their employer to lose the contract (and presumably the workers’ jobs)?  Again, good question.  Take a look at Section 76 of the Labour Relations Act. It says that “no person” (that would catch the Region or the person who told the media that it was putting the contractors on notice that their contracts would be terminated if the work stoppage continues) can seek “by intimidation or coercion” to compel a person to refrain from exercising their legal right to strike.

Do you think the Region’s decision to cancel contracts of employers whose workers exercise the legal right to strike, and to threaten to do the same to other companies if workers’ continue their strike, amounts to a violation of the Section 76 prohibition?
If so, what remedy could the Labour Board order?

 

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
The Face of Locked Out Caterpillar Workers in London
next post
An Interesting Synergy Between Toronto and Wisconsin Politics?

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 219 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.