Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 230
0352-00-U Lafarge Canada Inc., Applicant v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 230 and Ed Johnson, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Joseph Liberman, Erin Kuzz, John O’Brien and Scott Rudy for the applicant; N. L. Jesin, Bob Shewbridge and Ed Johnson for the responding parties
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 16, 2000
This is an application under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) that was filed with the Board on May 2, 2000. The application was adjourned sine die on May 5, 2000, but was relisted for hearing at the request of the applicant and was subsequently set down for hearing on an expedited basis on Monday, May 15, 2000.
Having considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Board made the following oral ruling on May 15, 2000:
The statute contains a comprehensive code that prohibits unlawful strikes, threats of unlawful strikes and behaviour intended to encourage 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. Bill 7 has added an additional requirement that (except in the construction industry) a strike must be preceded by a timely secret ballot vote of the employees who would be involved.
These provisions are part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme that has been in place for about 50 years. Under that scheme, collective bargaining is given a statutory framework which it lacked at common law, and trade unions are relieved of many of the common law disabilities which might inhibit the bargaining process. Under the Act, a trade union can become the employees' exclusive bargaining agency upon demonstrating majority support, employers have a statutory obligation to bargain and employees are protected from employer reprisals. A strike no longer severs the employment relationship (see section 1(2)), employers cannot penalize employees for engaging in lawful strike activity, and employees have a statutory right to return to work within six months of the commencement of a lawful strike. There are a variety of procedures designed to enhance the bargaining process, promote the resolution of disputes, and protect the union's bargaining rights. Strike regulations are only part of the overall scheme, and cannot be read in isolation from it.
In summary then, 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.
If 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 96 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.
(3) An employer can discipline employees who 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 an unlawful strike. Those remedies need not be elaborated here.
The Board does not condone any unlawful strike activity. In appropriate circumstances, the Board may find that picketing at construction sites at which Lafarge Canada Inc. (“Lafarge”) is delivering to customers constitutes unlawful activity in violation of the Act. Similarly, if Lafarge alters its ordinary business practices with regard to delivery to Innocon customers, such a finding may not be appropriate.
Having heard from the parties, it is clear that the responding parties, and in particular Mr. Johnson, have violated the Act by engaging in an unlawful strike at the Lafarge facilities located in Milton and Georgetown. Accordingly, the Board makes the following declarations and orders:
declares that the Teamster, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 230 (“Teamsters Local 230”) and Ed Johnson have violated the Act insofar as they have engaged in an unlawful strike at the Lafarge facilities located in Milton and Georgetown;
orders that Teamsters Local 230 and Ed Johnson cease and desist from violating sections 81 and 83(1) and all other sections of the Act;
orders that anyone having notice of this decision cease and desist from:
a) engaging in any unlawful strike or authorizing, threaten to call or encouraging an unlawful strike; and/or
b) doing any act, the probable and reasonable consequence of which is that another person or persons will engage in an unlawful strike at or in relation to Lafarge Canada Inc.;
- orders that Teamsters Local 230 provide a copy of this decision to all of its stewards forthwith;
The Board declines to award any damages to the applicant having regard to the circumstances of this case.
These orders are confined to the facts giving rise to this application.
“John Morgan Lewis”
for the Board