100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 31 - 32 out of 45 pages.
-Unlike the “intimidation and coercion” unfair labour practices discussed earlier in the chapter, the non-interference provision does not include a motive element. -If an employer intendsto interfere with a union, then it is acting with an anti-union animus and is almost certainly in violation of the non-interference provisions. CASE LAW: Canadian Paperworkers Union v. International Wallcoverings, PAGE 549-An employer violated the non-interference provision when it fired union-supporting employees based onthe mistaken belief that they had engaged in misconduct during a strike. CASE LAW: Employer Property Rights versus the Right to Organize Cadillac Fairview Corp Ltd. v. R.W.D.S.U., PAGE: 549-The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) commenced and organizing campaign of employees of Eaton’s, the flagship retail store at the Eaton Centre in Toronto. -Access to door Employees entered and exited the workplace were in the mall, which was owned by Cadillac Fairview (CF) -CF enforced the mall’s “No solicitation” policy to exclude all such leafletting and organizing on mall property. Issue: Did CF unlawfully interfere in the formation of a union by banning union organizers from the Eaton Centre? Decision:YES! Property rights must be weighed against the statutorily protected right to organize. Accessing the mall was essential for the union organizers since it was the only realistic way that the organizers could identify and communicate with workers at this workplace.IV. Employer Expression Rights:-Employers are not completely silenced during a union organizing campaign. -Employers can prohibit union organizing during working hours, when the employees should be performing their jobs. -They can also enforce their property rights to exclude professional union organizers (with some exceptions, such as when workers live on employer-controlled property or the only access to the workersis by entering employer property, such as in case of shopping malls). -The law generally permits employers to campaign against unionization as long as they do not engage in threats, coercion, intimidation, and, in some jurisdictions, “undue influence.” -In most Canadian jurisdictions, employers are permitted to actively lobby employees to “vote no” and even to say negative things about unions, provided that there are no threats, intimidation, or coercion. -Labour relations boards apply an objective test, asking whether an employee of “average intelligence and fortitude” would be intimidated by the employer’s expression in the circumstances. -Employer captive audience meetingsare usually permitted in Canada comments made at the captive audience meeting may be ruled to coercive and intimidating even though in another context the same comments would not be.