Labour Relations Act

Labour Strife at Amazon Canada

by
dennizn/Shutterstock

Amazon Canada, according to its website, is the largest online retailer in the country. Customers can shop for ‘millions of items’ that are delivered to them within days of purchase. It is an industry power house that continues to dominate the retail landscape. Sales have increased at record rates for Canadian businesses shipping through Amazon over the past fiscal year.

Click here to read about Amazon Canada’s record sales. 

Amazon’s mission statement is “to be Earth’s most customer-centric company”. In light of this statement and given the evidence of record growth, it seems clear that the company is thriving in the achievement of that mission.

All is not so rosy, however, on the employee and labour relations side of Amazon Canada’s growth ledger.

Since 2017, Amazon Canada has been facing allegations of numerous labour-related complaints. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada (UFCW Canada) has filed a complaint with the Labour Relations Board of Ontario, alleging that Amazon Canada has interfered with the legal right of employees to certify and become members of a union. UFCW Canada has claimed unfair labour practices on the part of Amazon Canada, including anti-union messaging, closing of branches and termination of employees who organized or participated in union drives in specific locations.

Click here to read about the labour complaints against Amazon Canada.

Furthermore, there are allegations that organizational leaders held ‘secret meetings’ in 2017 that focused on anti-union messages and practices.

Click here to read the allegations about ‘secret meetings’ with Amazon Canada delivery companies.

As noted in both articles, these allegations of unfair labour practices are now part of the legal proceedings underway with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).  If indeed the allegations are proven to be true, the OLRB may be able to impose numerous remedies which may include the reinstatement of the terminated employees and, possibly, certification as a result of management interference in a legitimate process based on the freedom and the right to unionize. If, on the other hand, the allegations are not upheld, it will be interesting to see if the union will continue in its long-term efforts to unionize Amazon Canada workers and their affiliates.

In the meantime, there is no doubt that Amazon Canada will continue in its efforts to dominate on-line shopping and delivery around the world.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Identify the legislation in Ontario that gives employees the right to certify?
  2. What are the potential risks to Amazon in their stance against certification?
  3. How does a non-union environment benefit Amazon and its workers?
  4. Does the alleged anti-union stance at Amazon Canada have any impact on your on-line purchasing and shopping patterns? Explain your rationale.

Labour dispute kept CNE customers away

by

The Canadian National Exhibition was marred by a labour dispute this year.

This year’s edition of the annual end-of-summer celebration saw the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) union members walk the picket line at the front gates of the CNE.

Strikes are always disruptive and potentially costly events. It was predicted that the CNE may have lost up to $1.5 million in tickets sales as many regular customers didn’t want to cross the picket line.

Now here is the very interesting part about the strike. It directly affected the CNE, but the striking workers are not CNE employees. The IATSE union members work for Exhibition Place, the location where the CNE is held.  The IATSE members are concerned that their jobs are being contracted out to private companies and their union members are going to lose their jobs. The CNE is not a party to the labour dispute, yet they were caught in the middle of it.

This particular strike makes the HR person reflect and think about how important it is to understand the labour laws where your company works.  Your organization may not be unionized, but union disputes may have an impact on your business.

Discussion questions:

In these articles it is suggested that the CNE hired outside workers to come into the CNE and set up the stages. Review your provincial Labour Relations Act and determine if it is legal for an employer whose workers are on strike to hire replacement workers.

  • Why is the issue of contracting out work such a contentious issue in most labour relation negotiations?
  • In this case, did the CNE have any legal right to prevent the IATSE union members from picketing the CNE?

Reaping What Is Sown

by
Stuart Miles/Shutterstock

‘For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction’. This famous mathematical law is handed down to us from history by Isaac Newton, who developed it in the late 17th century. In the early 21st century, it seems this law continues to prevail, even when applied to the context of modern employee and labour relations strategies.

In January 2018, revisions to the Employment Standards Act of Ontario were implemented, resulting in numerous changes that impact the lives of workers in this province. In its messaging prior to the implementation of these changes, the provincial government stated that the revisions to the legislation were required in order to ensure that ‘workers in Ontario have the right to strong protections at work’.

In the following months, there continues to be on-going media coverage focused primarily on the increases to the minimum wage and subsequent reactions to this change. Most of the media coverage has not painted a positive picture of employer conduct in Ontario, especially as it relates to the food-service and restaurant industries.

A recent example of this type of employer conduct has resulted in the decision by employees of the Rainforest Café in Niagara Falls to unionize.

Click here to read a brief news report published by Labour Reporter.

Click here to read a more detailed article published by the St. Catharines Standard.

As we have learned from our industrial relations studies, there are a number of theories explaining why employees choose to join unions. We need to set those theories aside for a moment in order to consider the reality of the impact of poor employer conduct on employees, and the ensuing results.

When employers continue to engage in conduct that appears to contradict the law (such as dipping into employee earnings (tips) in order to subsidize mandatory minimum wages) it should come as no surprise that employees will react by finding a way to ensure the increased protections they were promised. Unionization does not happen in a vacuum. When promises are broken by an employer, employees will look beyond the boundaries of their existing workplace for support and legal strength.

Employees in Ontario have a reasonable expectation to receive their wages in accordance with the law. When this does not happen, the employer should expect to receive the union they deserve as a result.

 

Discussion Questions:

  1. If you were an employee of the Rainforest Café, what impact would the vote to unionize have on you?
  2. What steps could the employer have taken to avoid a vote for unionization?
  3. Identify the positive benefits that the vote to unionize may have on both the employees and the employer in this case.
  4. Do you agree or disagree with the vote taken by the workers of the Rainforest Café? Explain your rationale.

When does no mean no?

by

 

Marijuana and a gavel together for many legal concepts on the drug.
Matt Benoit/Shutterstock

Most Canadians are aware of the potential for the complete legalization of the marijuana industry. Medical marijuana is already trading as a commodity in Canadian provinces. It is a significant growth industry with the potential for continuing profits and productivity. With the development of this particular industry comes the development of employment related opportunities and conflicts.

A recent case involving an application for certification by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union for employees of MedReleaf provides us with an example of the complexities involved in determining whether or not a workforce can unionize in the context of a particular industry. MedReleaf is a licensed medical marijuana producer located in Ontario.

Click here to read a summary of case facts.

As noted in this summary, the UFCW filed for an application to certify the workers of MedReleaf under both federal and provincial jurisdictions. MedReleaf, as the employer, responded to this application by stating that it is part of the agricultural service industry and, therefore, outside of the jurisdiction of both the Labour Relations Act and federal labour legislation. Despite this argument, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) ordered a vote by the employees of MedReleaf to determine whether or not they (the employees) wanted to certify and have a union represent their interests.

The employees did not vote yes. They voted against having UFCW as their union and against certification. As a result, the UFCW filed for ‘remedial certification’ citing unfair labour practices. If the union was successful proving that unfair labour practices did indeed take place during the employee certification process, the employees of MedReleaf would automatically become unionized, even though they did not vote for union certification. According to the facts of this case, the second application was dismissed based on the OLRB determining it could not make a decision because the matters were outside its jurisdiction. It seems to be confirmed, as a result, that the employees of MedReleaf are subject to the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA) and, as agricultural workers, would not be able to form or join a union.

This case raises very interesting and complex questions. Why was the employee vote not considered satisfactory from the perspective of the UFCW? The allegation of an unfair labour practice during a certification drive is very serious. If it is found to be true, the employees will be certified by the OLRB, even if the majority of the employees voted against joining a union.

On the other hand, why would the OLRB order a vote in the first place and then, much later, determine that neither the provincial Labour Relations Act (which governs the OLRB) nor the federal jurisdiction applies in this case? Without more detail and information from each of the parties involved in this dispute, it seems that these questions will remain unanswered.

What this situation does provide is an insight into the perseverance of both the employer and the union in determining the rightness of their particular positions. The issues may be related to workplace rights and representation. There is no doubt, however, that the issues are also linked to the profitability of this particular product.

After all, the stakes are high for everyone.

Discussion Questions:

  1. On what grounds do you think the Ontario Labour Board based its decision when considering the Agricultural Employees Protection Act,2002 (AEPA)?
  2. Why do you think the United Food and Commercial Workers union filed a federal and provincial application simultaneously?
  3. Why do you think the OLRB ordered a vote for MedReleaf employees in this case?
  4. If you were representing the union in this case, on what grounds would you file an appeal?