The PEA Blog

From the Winnipeg Sun:

An Ontario appeals court has validated the individual rights of labour union members.

The court recently rejected arguments put forward by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) that it has the “right” to use the courts to collect fines for striking workers who cross the picket fine.

This clearly places the balance of power back with individuals and away from powerful labour bosses.

Although PSAC has the option of appealing the decision to the Supreme Court, one hopes they would not by standing clearly on the side of individual autonomy.

Apparently, Courts in Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba have already ruled that unions cannot use courts to collect fines. Saskatchewan is the only jurisdiction in Canada that authorizes a union to fine its members for crossing a picket line during a strike. Given the tradition of favouring organized labour in that province, one may think change in this area would take a long time.

In his judgment, Justice Robert Armstrong called the penalties levied by PSAC “unconscionable,” in that there is a considerable power imbalance between a union and its members in including such penalty provisions in their collective agreements.

The timing of the decision is of concern to PSAC because of an ongoing strike among Canada Post workers. Many members have already started crossing the picket line in order to work.

When asked about the judgment, Michael Lynk, associated dean of law at the University of Western Ontario said, “It weakens the ability of unions to be able to ensure their solidarity during a lawful strike.”

But, why should union bosses be able to use the long arm of the law to do their dirty work? If a strike is worthy of support, shouldn’t union members be able to voluntarily support it, without fear of reprisal? Enforcing fines does not sound like “solidarity” to me, but coercion.

When I started my career as a community reporter in Northern Ontario, I covered several major strikes and I witnessed some of the intimidation tactics that were used to ensure “solidarity.” Respecting a legal strike is one thing, but using fear to ensure that members “stick together” is just not right.

This does not even touch on the treatment given to legal replacement workers.

Unions serve a worthwhile function in society, in terms of speaking for worker health and safety and airing employee concerns on important issues. However, unions should also respect the rights of individual members who disagree with their policies.

It is often the case that many workers do not even have a choice whether to join a union to receive a certain job. Union members are also not asked when their organization spends their dues on political causes they don’t agree with.

Other jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, have moved in the direction of greater individual rights for union members. Gone are the days of compulsory association in a labour union or being forced to support union tactics that one disagrees with. To remain relevant within the political system, Canadian labour unions should respect the principles that Canadians support, like individual rights.

Supporting this recent court decision would be a good start.