Employment and Labour Law
Essay Preview: Employment and Labour Law
Report this essay
Employment and Labour Law (1) The Union is concerned that the Employer is not bargaining in good faith. Legal ArgumentsFor Union:The employer failed to bargain in good faith by refusing to meet; cancelling meetings, rescheduling meetings, not giving the negotiating team any power to bargain, surface bargaining, deliberate provocation, refusing to justify a position, (Olivio, 2013) Section 17 of the OLRA states that the parties must have the true decision maker at the table. (Olivio, 2013). The negotiating team was included more junior members of the human resource department. Surface bargaining is evident as the employer agrees to meet and discuss the issues but a real effort was not made to reach an agreement when the employer withdrew several concessions it had made without any explanation.For Employer:- According to Section 17 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, the parties must meet within 15 days after the notice to bargain has been given or they must agree on a later meeting time. (Olivio, 2013)- Section 16 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act states that once the union is certified or voluntarily recognized, it must give notice to the employer to bargain. (Olivio, 2013)- Section 65 of the Act says that if the union fails to do so within 60 days, it risks being decertified because it is “sleeping on its rights”. Also according to section 65 of the act, if the union fails to give notice to bargain for renewal in accordance with the OLRA or the collective agreement, the employer may apply to terminate the union’s bargaining rights because it has abandoned this workplace. (Olivio, 2013)Legal MeritsAccording to the facts and legal arguments provided, I believe the union might win this particular issue as the employer took part of bad faith bargaining. The employer was evident of refusing to meet with the union by cancelling and rescheduling meetings, which was a vibrant example of bad faith bargaining. Both parties should bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement. The employer refused to make every reasonable effort to enter into a collective agreement. Both the employer and the union disobeyed section 17 of the Act in this section. As the employer’s negotiating team was changed and included more junior members, it does not follow having true decision makers at the table. The new members are not familiar of the previous collective agreement. Also, the union and the employer encountered bad faith bargaining by not meeting to discuss the bargaining. As the employer withdrew many concessions without explanation it had caused the union to act upon it. This had affected the negotiations between both parties massively. The union can definitely win this argument because their points are much stronger, as the employer started off by refusing to meet up, added junior members and failed to justify the changes made to concessions.
Potential RemediesIn a situation that consists of bad faith bargaining, the remedies are; “order by court, declaration, posting decision, and monetary rewards.” (Lomic, 2015) Also the union can seek a third-party determination, an interest arbitration to distinguish each party’s rights. (2) The Employer is questioning if the strike is legalLegal argumentsFor Union:Conciliation has taken place and not resulted in a new agreement. Under Section 79 of the Act, more than 50% of the voters must be in favour of the strike. 89% of the members voted to strike. (Olivio, 2013) The collective agreement should have expired for the strikes to be permitted. As the agreement expires March 1st, the employees went on strike March 2nd, which is acceptable.For Employer:No strikes are permitted during the term of a collective agreement. As the collective agreement had expired on March 1st, no strikes are permitted during the term of a collective agreement. On December 7th, the union instructing its members not to show up for the next day, is a form of illegal striking, which violates the OLRA. (Olivio, 2013)The minister of labour must have issued a decision that a conciliation board will not be appointed, a no board report should be issued for the legality of strike. (Olivio, 2013) Also a cooling off period of fourteen days must have gone by after the issuing the no-board report. Under Section 79 of the Act the union must have conducted a strike vote, which the earliest could be is 30 days before the agreement expires. The union voted on January 15th, which was more than 30 days before the expiry of agreement (March 1st). Legal Merits I believe the strike is illegal as it fails to comply with numerous terms of the OLRA. Strike vote was taken on January 15th, 2015,which was over 30 days before the expiry of the agreement. The minister did not issue a no board report which violates the OLRA legality of the strike. A strike cannot be permitted until the expiration of the agreement, which was on March 1st. It was unlawful for the union to tell their employees not to show up on December 7th. The points are stronger towards the employers in this section, which concludes that the employees will win this argument.