0529-00-U Domtar Inc., Applicant v. Local 2995 I.W.A. Canada, Local 1-2995, I.W.A. Canada, Damien Roy, Roland Laurin, Lucien Boucher, Desmond Larocque, Tony Matuissi and Maurice Demers, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 17, 2000
1This is an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
2The applicant employer asserts:
- that a number of "employees" are engaging in an unlawful strike;
- that the responding union and its officials have called, authorized and threatened that unlawful strike;
- that those officials have taken steps to counsel, procure, support or encourage the unlawful strike; and finally
- that various "persons" are doing acts which they know or ought to know will induce employees to engage in an unlawful strike.
3Briefly put the employer says that employees and union officials from the Chapleau Mill, where there is an ongoing lawful strike, are picketing at the Domtar Mill in Timmins thereby causing an unlawful strike at the Timmins facility. According to the employer, employees at the Timmins Mill are refusing to cross the picket line of their sister local, or to go in to work as they are required to do by their subsisting collective agreement; moreover, (again according to the employer) the respondents are perfectly well aware that picketing in Timmins will have that effect. In other words, the employer is concerned about both the picketing activity itself, and what the employer says is happening as a result of that picketing.
4The employer seeks a declaration that this strike and picketing activity are unlawful, as well as a direction prohibiting that unlawful conduct.
5At this stage the employer's application is a mere allegation. There has, as yet, been no hearing to establish the employer's assertions or to consider what remedy might or should flow if the employer proves its case. On the other hand, if there is a collective agreement in place that applies to the workers at the Timmins Mill (as the employer says there is), the scheme of the Labour Relations Act certainly suggests that any strike or threatened strike by those employees would be unlawful at this time. And, quite apart from a work stoppage itself, the statute does address persons and conduct that cause unlawful strikes. The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows:
[Strike Definition]
- (1) In this Act,
"strike" includes a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding, or a slow‑down or other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output.
[All Collective Agreements must have a “no-strike” clause]
- Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that there will be no strikes or lock‑outs so long as the agreement continues to operate.
[Employer-employee disputes must be arbitrated]
- (1) Every collective agreement shall provide for the final and binding settlement by arbitration, without stoppage of work, of all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable.
[Employees must not strike during a collective agreement]
- (1) Where a collective agreement is in operation, no employee bound by the agreement shall strike and no employer bound by the agreement shall lock out such an employee.
(2) Where no collective agreement is in operation, no employee shall strike and no employer shall lock out an employee until the Minister has appointed a conciliation officer or a mediator under this Act and,
(a) seven days have elapsed after the day the Minister has released or is deemed pursuant to subsection 122(2) to have released to the parties the report of a conciliation board or mediator; or
(b) 14 days have elapsed after the day the Minister has released or is deemed pursuant to subsection 122(2) to have released to the parties a notice that he or she does not consider it advisable to appoint a conciliation board.
(6) No employee shall threaten an unlawful strike and no employer shall threaten an unlawful lock‑out of an employee.
[Trade unions must not sponsor strike activity]
- No trade union or council of trade unions shall call or authorize or threaten to call or authorize an unlawful strike and no officer, official or agent of a trade union or council of trade unions shall counsel, procure, support or encourage an unlawful strike or threaten an unlawful strike.
[Prohibition against persons causing strikes]
- (1) No person shall do any act if the person knows or ought to know that, as a probable and reasonable consequence of the act, another person or persons will engage in an unlawful strike or an unlawful lock-out.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act done in connection with a lawful strike or lawful lock-out.
[No reprisals for refusing to engage in an unlawful strike]
- No trade union shall suspend, expel or penalize in any way a member because the member has refused to engage in or to continue to engage in a strike that is unlawful under this Act.
[Declaration and direction by Board re unlawful strike]
- Where, on the complaint of a trade union, council of trade unions, employer or employers' organization, the Board is satisfied that a trade union or council of trade unions called or authorized or threatened to call or authorize an unlawful strike or that an officer, official or agent of a trade union or council of trade unions counselled or procured or supported or encouraged an unlawful strike or threatened an unlawful strike or that employees engaged in or threatened to engage in an unlawful strike or any person has done or is threatening to do an act that the person knows or ought to know that, as a probable and reasonable consequence of the act, another person or persons will engage in an unlawful strike, the Board may so declare and it may direct what action, if any, a person, employee, employer, employers' organization, trade union or council of trade unions and their officers, officials or agents shall do or refrain from doing with respect to the unlawful strike or the threat of an unlawful strike.
[emphasis added]
6As will be seen, the statute contains a comprehensive code that prohibits unlawful strikes, threats of unlawful strikes and behaviour intended to encourage or cause unlawful work stoppages. Strikes are permitted only where there is no collective agreement in force, and the bargaining parties have completed the compulsory conciliation process contemplated by the statute. “Strikes” at any other time are unlawful; moreover, the definition of “strike” is quite elastic, and encompasses any work refusal by a group of employees “in concert, in combination, or in accordance with a common understanding”. Those words have been held to encompass a broad range of collective activity including: slowdowns, “hot cargo arrangements”, “sympathy strikes” and a concerted refusal to cross picket lines as an expression of solidarity with the actions of another trade union. The definition is intentionally cast in very broad terms, and has been so construed by both the Board and the Courts. [See, for example: Acme Building and Construction Ltd., [1984] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1037; Toronto Transit Commission, [1984] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1781, application for judicial review dismissed June 23, 1986 (Div. Ct.); Horton CBI Ltd., [1985] OLRB Rep. June 880; and the discussion in Nelson Quarry Co., [1995] OLRB Rep. June 825.]
7In several of the cases cited above, the Board found that refusing to cross a picket line “in solidarity” with fellow workers amounted to an unlawful strike within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. “Solidarity” provided the element of “common understanding” necessary to meet the strike definition – as the Supreme Court of Canada held in ILA Local 273 et al v. Maritime Employer Association et al 78 C.L.L.C. para. 14,171. Thus, in Horton CBI Ltd. (supra) the Board described the effect of picketing this way:
- The problem with the respondents’ submissions is that they characterize picketing solely as a means of expression or communicating information. But, as we have already noted, in ordinary circumstances (and certainly in the circumstances of this case), the picket line is much more than that. It is not just a simple exercise of a worker’s freedom of expression. In the heavily unionized context of the construction industry, it is an effective trigger to a work stoppage. The very presence of a picket line will likely induce sympathetic action, quite irrespective of the nature of the information which the pickets seek to disseminate. Picketing is not just a rational appeal to persuasion. It involves an appeal for the application of immediate economic leverage in support of the picketers’ cause. It is not an invitation to debate, it is a call to action; and in cases such as the present one, such action has already interfered with the conduct of the applicant’s business and may well result in an unlawful work stoppage.
Indeed, in Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Limited, [1982] OLRB Rep. Sept. 1824, the Board held that there were limits on a union’s ability to picket at secondary locations even when there was a lawful strike by the same union at some other facility. (See also: Sarnia Construction Association, [1982] OLRB Rep. June 922, compare Bird Construction Co. Ltd., [1985] OLRB Rep. Mar. 359, and see more recently, Progistix-Solutions Inc., [1999] OLRB Rep. Mar./Apr. 309. In these latter cases the Board took a more limited view, focusing on the results of the picketing – the unlawful strike – rather than the picketing itself).
8So this is not an entirely new problem for the Board. There are cases that touch on both picketing and its consequences.
9I do not propose to burden this brief decision with further references to the case law, because as I have already indicated, the employer’s assertions are, at this stage mere allegations. They have yet to be proved, and it has yet to be established whether the behaviour described fits within the legal framework regulating industrial conflict, and, if it does, what remedy (if any) the Board might/should give in the circumstances. The point is: the statute supports collective bargaining, recognizes a freedom to strike, and immunizes lawful strike activity from both common law disabilities and certain forms of employer reprisal. But, at the same time, the statute regulates the manner and time in which such economic pressure can be exerted. In particular, the statute guarantees that once a collective agreement is signed, it becomes a "peace pact": there can be no strike or lock‑out during its term of operation; moreover, the statute also prohibits various kinds of behaviour designed to cause unlawful strikes.
10If an unlawful strike does occur, an employer can seek a number of remedies. In Monarch Fine Foods Limited, [1986] OLRB Rep. May 661, the Board outlined the options:
(1) Under section 100 an employer can seek a cease‑and‑desist order enforceable in the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) as an Order of that Court. Disobedience can result in fine or imprisonment.
(2) An employer may seek damages at arbitration for any lost profits or economic losses [see section 103 of the Act].
(3) An employer can discipline employees who cause or engage in unlawful concerted activity because engaging in a strike is a breach of their employment obligations which warrants at least some discipline, depending on the circumstances. (See for example: Re Oshawa Group Ltd. and Teamsters Union Local 419 (1988), 1988 CanLII 9224 (ON LA), 33 L.A.C. (3d) 97 where the arbitrator upheld a 14‑day suspension with consequent loss of pay for an employee engaging in an illegal strike.)
(4) The employer may seek a consent to prosecute and subsequently prosecute employees or the trade union for their breach of the law. An unlawful strike is not just a private protest. It is contrary to the Labour Relations Act. A successful criminal prosecution may result in fines of up to $2,000 per day for employees and $20,000 per day for the Union.
A variety of remedies may also be available to interested parties who are injured by an unlawful strike, or in respect of picketing in connection with a lawful or an unlawful strike. Those remedies need not be elaborated here.
11In (alleged) unlawful strike situations (or threats) expedition is important ‑ particularly where it is said that strike activity is ongoing or imminent. The Board's practice is to schedule such matters for hearing as soon as possible. Accordingly, this matter is hereby set down for hearing on an expedited basis. The hearing will take place at the Boardroom, 2nd Floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, on Thursday, May 18, 2000 beginning at 2:00 p.m. If the case is not resolved on that date, it will continue on consecutive days, from day to day thereafter, until completed or the Board otherwise directs.
12The purpose of the hearing is to receive the parties’ representations on the matters in dispute: whether the behaviour complained of is “unlawful” in whole or in part; and what remedy, if any, should flow if that proposition is established.
13The responding parties may file their replies, if any, prior to the commencement of the hearings. Such replies may be provided to the applicant and the Board by facsimile transmission.
14The applicant and the responding parties are both directed to take all reasonable steps to bring this decision to the attention of any employee or union official who may be affected by the situation under review, or the remedies which the applicant seeks.
15In advance of the hearing, a Labour Relations Officer may contact the parties to see whether they can compose their differences, without formal litigation. As I have already noted, there are a number of Board cases touching on the issues raised by the applicant, so the parties may well be able to resolve this dispute without the necessity of a formal or protracted hearing.
“R. O. MacDowell”
for the Board