Employees and unions face substantial risks while organizing unions, and employers frequently hinder them. Labour law regimes aim to mitigate these dangers by making it illegal for employers to engage in various unfair labour practices that impede the formation of labour unions (Slinn, 2008). However, the Labour Relations Board in Canada frequently refrains from granting complete compensation for the harm caused by Unfair Labour Practices (ULPs), which forces employers to perceive ULPs as favourable courses of action with only moderate costs involved. In our scenario, we will review a case involving S Transport Ltd. and TEAMSTERS union regarding unfair labour practices and determine how they can be remedied.
Question 1
Placing Pamphlets on trucks that were parked on the employer’s property
Union’s Argument: The Teamsters Union initiated an organizing campaign to unionize the drivers employed by the company. Before commencing their duties, a driver affixed a pamphlet onto the trucks belonging to the drivers that were parked on the employer’s premises. The Union could contend that disseminating pamphlets constitutes a manifestation of freedom of expression and is important for apprising employees of their entitlements and the advantages of unionization. Additionally, the Union could contend that although the employer legally owns the parking lot, it should be considered a permissible area for employees to engage in work-related discussions.
Employers Argument: The employer may contend that the Union infringed upon their property rights by illegally affixing pamphlets onto trucks without prior consent. The employer may argue that the Union’s distributing brochures on trucks parked on the employer’s premises contravenes section 95(d) of the Canada Labour Code. According to the Code, it is prohibited to try to convince an employee to join, not join, or leave a trade union at their workplace during their working hours without the employer’s permission (Legislative Services Branch, 2023). They may argue that this action will convince employees to join the Union without the employer’s approval.
Asking drivers to contact other drivers on their CBs while they were driving
Union’s Argument: The Union could assert that the CB radios are the drivers’ personal belongings and were utilized willingly. Furthermore, they may contend that using CB radios for communication is a prevalent custom within the truck-driving community and does not impede their job performance.
Employer’s Argument: The employer may contend that utilizing CB radios for union mobilization while operating vehicles could pose a safety risk and divert attention from job duties. The employer may argue that the Union’s promotion of drivers communicating with each other via CB radios while driving constitutes a breach of section 95(d) of the Code. This is an endeavour to exert influence over employees within their designated work hours without the explicit permission of the employer. Furthermore, they may argue that it is unsuitable for the Union to engage employees in their campaign while on duty.
Paying for driver’s meals
Union’s Argument: Union organizers establish a restaurant table at the stops. The drivers of S Transport Ltd. were invited to the table and were persuaded to sign membership cards. The organizers covered the expenses for the meals of S Transport Ltd. drivers, regardless of whether they opted to dine with them, and for the meals of other drivers who joined them at their table. The Union could assert that offering meals is customary during organizing drives to foster a conducive conversation atmosphere. They could also contend that the drivers were not required to accompany the union organizers or endorse the organization in return for the meals.
Employer’s Argument: The employer may contend that the Union’s provision of meal expenses for S Transport Ltd. drivers during truck stops is an endeavour to exert influence and sway over employees to encourage them to join the Union. This could be interpreted as an implicit incentive contravening section 95(d) of the Code.
Letter from the company’s president
Union’s Argument: The Union may contend that the correspondence from the firm president hampers the establishment or management of the Union, so contravening section 94(1)(a) of the Code. The Code prohibits employers or their representatives from engaging in or obstructing the establishment or management of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union (Legislative Services Branch, 2023b). The president’s letter establishes a climate of fear or intimidation, which deters employees from exercising their rights to join a union. The Union may contend that a key principle of labour legislation is that employees can decide whether to be affiliated with a union and participate in legitimate union activities (Labor Relations Code, 2023). Even if employees remain steadfast in not supporting unionization following an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP), they may still be persuaded that it is too difficult to endorse or engage in unionization. Therefore, the Union may have squandered some or all of the money allocated to its organizing campaign. Equally important is the damage caused to the Union’s reputation and the erosion of its trustworthiness, not just among the workers directly affected by the Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) at that specific site but also among other current and prospective union members. The employer’s wrongdoing may doubt the Union’s capacity to adequately advocate for employees and safeguard its adherents from unlawful retaliation.
Employer’s Argument: The employer may contend that the Union’s complaints lack validity. Additionally, they may argue that the Union’s actions contravened the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and that their actions were imperative to uphold order and productivity within the workplace.
Question 2
As a board member, I may permit using pamphlets regarding freedom of expression. However, I would prohibit their placement on corporate vehicles from safeguarding employer property rights and preventing a breach of section 95(d) of the labour law. Regarding the usage of CBs during working hours, as a Board member, I would have identified a violation of section 95(d) due to the substantial disruption it causes to work while driving.
In addition, providing payment for meals, particularly for drivers not already in the Union, could be interpreted as bribery and a breach of section 95(d) of the Code. Regarding the letter from the company’s president, that is a disruption of section 94(1)(b) of the Code since the president is threatening the employees’ jobs if they are involved with the Union. Typically, an employer might be deemed to have committed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) during organizing when its activities impede the rights of employees or the Union to pursue collective representation. Unlawful employer communications with employees can occur in various situations. Occasionally, this type of communication occurs when an employer, to prevent unionization, unlawfully exploits its ability to reach out to employees and conveys messages against unionization. At times, an employer may openly state its opinions regarding unionization or attempt to comprehend the underlying reasons for the discontent motivating employees to seek unionization. Unintentionally, the employer may exceed the boundaries. The employer’s words may inadvertently have a threatening, intimidating, or coercive impact on workers, even if this is not their intention.
Cease and Desist Order: As a board member, I would issue a Cease and Desist Order to the Union specifically over their practice of distributing Pamphlets on the company’s trucks. In labour laws, a cease and desist letter serves as a formal notification to the receiver, accusing them of potentially violating the legal rights of the sender and requesting an immediate cessation of such actions (Hosking, 2023). Cease and desist letters are frequently used to safeguard confidential information or intellectual property. I suggest providing education and training on labour rules to the employer and the Union to prevent future infractions. In addition, both sides should commit to refrain from retaliating against employees based on their involvement in union activities.
References
Hosking, A. (2023). ‘Understanding the importance of a cease and desist letter for workers in Canada – HR Future,’ HR Future, 5 June. https://www.hrfuture.net/strategy/legal/understanding-the-importance-of-a-cease-and-desist-letter-for-workers-in-canada/. (Accessed on 30 January 2024).
Labour Relations Code. (2023) RSBC 1996, c 244, <https://canlii.ca/t/5656r> (Accessed on 30 January 2024).
Legislative Services Branch (2023). Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Canada Labour Code. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/page-11.html#h-340805. (Accessed on 30 January 2024).
Legislative Services Branch (2023b). Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Canada Labour Code. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/l-2/page-11.html?wbdisable=true. (Accessed on 30 January 2024).
Sara Slinn. (2008). No Right (to Organize) Without a Remedy: Evidence and Consequences of the Failure to Provide Compensatory Remedies for Unfair Labour Practices in British Columbia, 2008 53-4 McGill Law Journal 687, 2008 CanLIIDocs 153, https://canlii.ca/t/2b3s (Accessed on 30 January 2024).
write