UNIONS AS INSTITUTIONS
Why unions?
Union history in North America goes back to 1792 –
Shoemakers Union. In Canada 1827, Printers Union.
Are unions obsolete with no useful purpose today?
Not all unions are the same. Note the difference between “business
unions” and unions seeking social and economic reform. The
former tend to focus on members’ issues such as entrenching in
collective agreements wages and benefits. The latter focus on
collective agreements but also on social and economic issues. The
latter focuses on obtaining social and economic change for the
benefit of all workers and society at large. For example, the
Canadian Union of Public Employees has consistently campaigned
on such societal matters as pay equity, public health care, and
reduction of tuition fees in post-secondary education.
Why join a union? Unions are more prevalent in medium/large
firms than in small/medium. The main reasons for joining a union
seem to be:
(A) Discontent with working conditions,
In Alberta, AFL study notes that wages adjusted for inflation have
not increased in Alberta since the mid-1990s. An Angus Reid poll
in 1996 found 81% of Canadians believe that employers put
profits before employees and 55% held that employers do not treat
employees as well as they should. Blyton and Dastmalchian did a
later survey suggesting the majority of employees are happy at
work. However a significant majority did not trust that their
employers would provide security of employment.
1
Heather Menzies (Whose Brave new World) identifies the stress
that accompanies workplaces with advanced information
technology. For example work in call centres such as Convergys is
highly stressful with essentially no opportunity to interact with
fellow workers. The deskilling and routinizing of complex skilled
work is a problem in today’s workplaces. See Pope John Paul II
Encyclical Laborem Exercens.
While stress is an aspect of unhealthy workplaces, workers are also
subject to risks of physical injury. See AFL article “Healthy
Workplaces”.
The foregoing matters and others breed discontent among
employees and encourage worker support for unions.
B. Unions are perceived as willing and able to tackle issues of
concern to workers.
In the Angus Reid poll referred to above and in the Vector poll of
2003, around two thirds of worker respondent approved of unions.
One third of non-union workers indicated they would vote for a
union in their workplaces. Here is a positive image of unions in
negotiation of wages, benefits etc.
Unions provide a voice for workers in not only individual interests
such as discipline or grievances, but as a means of advancing
workers’ collective interests, such as health and safety, job security
etc. It is notable that 63% of respondents in the Angus reid poll
considered unions valuable even if they generated no increase in
pay.
3. Unions contribute to democracy
SEE AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS that target unions as
dangerous. International law requires freedom of association. The
2
International Labour Organization states principle of workers’
rights. The WTO has confirmed its commitment to core labour
rights. The Pope’s Encyclical strongly supports the presence of
unions in workplaces.
Workers’ rights are not always delivered in Canada. See e.g. the
Dunsmore case where farm workers are not entitled to form
unions.
FUNCTIONS OF UNIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Economic function
Democratization function
Integrative function
Social democratic function
class conflict function
1. Economic
Wages and benefits are economically important. See the
importance of pensions, public healthcare, unemployment
insurance etc. for the nation’s economic health.
Poverty due to non-living wages has a significant adverse
effect on society. Healthcare costs, crime, low spending
power incur social and economic costs.
Disemployment effects of the business cycle are harmful to
the economy as discovered in the Great Depression of the
1930s and other recessions.
Union lobbying against foreign exploitation of workers may
is designed to maintain Canadian standards of living and to
prevent poverty overseas. Poverty creates risks of terrorism.
3
Contracting out is a form of union avoidance in order to
boost corporate profits. It is assumed corporate profits
benefit all society through trickle down economics but it
typically reduces the multiplier effect in the local economy.
De-skilling of work reduces workers’ power, increases
managerial power and reduces work to routine tasks.
Health and safety is frequently viewed as a cost of
production rather than an investment. Injured workers
produce scarcity of labour.
2. Democratization
A. Worker representation: grievances. See work of union
stewards who facilitate settlements by explaining collective
agreement to workers. This contributes to both substantive
justice that is a fair outcome for worker and management
and fair procedure. Both are important for efficiency, trust
and morale in the workplace.
B. Voice in bargaining and interpretation of the agreement.
Matters not settled at shop floor are considered at higher
level internally and finally by compulsory binding
arbitration.
C. NEGOTIATING and interpreting workplace RULES
AND PROCEDURES.
See the value of rules rather than discretionary managerial
decisions. Problems of perceived favouritism. Procedural
fairness. Avoid employees being made an example of.
JOB CLASSIFICATIONS problems of discrimination in the
job evaluation process. Human rights and pay equity
legislation require this.
4
DISCIPLINE. Arbitrators have established procedural and
substantive rules regarding discipline. Workplace rules
must be reasonable, certain and known. Discipline must be
progressive. See Cypress Hills case.
Cannot use employee as an example. Must be consistency in
application.
See recent Suncor case where worker was fired because of
his lack of English. Human rights matters are part of the
collective agreement. See legal costs.
Union representation in discipline meetings.
PROMOTION, PAY, benefits.
REGULATE MANAGERIAL abuse of AUTHORITY
D. POLITICAL NATURE AND STRUCTURE –
DEMOCRATIC
Multiple concerns of workers.
Pre-bargaining compromises within the union membership.
Includes minorities. Not just the majority will.
See impact of human rights and employment standards
legislation
E. Members participate in democratic process
Important to engage in democratic process at the micro level
as it may assist in participation in democracy at the macro
level – such as federal, provincial and municipal elections.
Question is how successful the process is. UNA is relatively
democratic with substantial consultation between grass
roots and the union bureaucracy. Teamsters were
historically relatively undemocratic, mainly because
5
members moved frequently across the continent in their
work.
3 Integrative function
Help management policies by supporting those acceptable to
the members.
Integrate different needs of workers. Young workers may
have different priorities from old. Gender differences; skill
level differences.
Provides an avenue for employees to participate as leaders
Role model for rights. Freedom of speech including
whistleblowing. Note provincial and federal whistleblowing
legislation and definition of lawful authority. This is an
ambiguous term and unions contribute to interpretation of
law through arbitration and sometimes via the courts.
An example of differences in interpretation of the law on the
matter of whistleblowing is the Merk case below.
Merk v. International Association of Bridge,
Structural,
Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771
Her Majesty The Queen ex rel. Linda Merk, appellant;
v.
International Association of Bridge, Structural,
Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771,
respondent.
[2005] S.C.J. No. 72
2005 SCC 70
6
File No.: 30090.
Supreme Court of Canada
Heard: February 10, 2005;
Judgment: November 24, 2005.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie, LeBel,
Deschamps, Abella and Charron JJ.
(61 paras.)
Appeal From:
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN
Subsequent History:
NOTE: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form
in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
Catchwords:
Labour law — Employee protection — Whistleblower — Provincial legislation
providing that no employer can discharge employee who "has reported ... to a lawful
authority any activity that is or is likely to result in an offence"— Employee fired for
reporting to union officials alleged financial abuse by supervisors — Whether "lawful
authorities" limited to persons capable of exercising authority with respect to offences —
The Labour Standards Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-1, s. 74.
Summary:
The appellant, M alleges that she was fired as bookeeper
and office manager of the respondent trade union because she
blew the whistle by informing International Union of Iron
Workers representatives of alleged financial misconduct
committed by her immediate supervisors at Local 771. Under
s. 74(1)(a) of the Saskatchewan Labour Standards Act, no
employer can discharge an employee because the employee
"has reported ... to a lawful authority any activity that is or is
likely to result in an offence". While the trial judge was
satisfied that the financial misconduct amounted to "an
offence" and that M was terminated because she reported it,
7
she nevertheless concluded that M had not complained to a
"lawful authority". In her view the expression "lawful
authority" should be limited to a person or institution
authorized by law to deal with the activity as an offence and
did not include employers. Both the summary conviction
appeal judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal agreed
with the interpretation of "lawful authority" adopted by the
trial judge.
Held (Deshamps J. dissenting): The appeal should be
allowed and a conviction entered.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie, LeBel, Abella and
Charron JJ.: The expression "lawful authority" in s. 74 of The
Labour Standards Act includes not only the police or other
agents of the state having authority to deal with the activity
complained of "as an offence", but also individuals within the
employer organization who exercise lawful authority over the
employee(s) complained about, or over the activity that is or is
likely to result in the offence. This interpretation of s. 74 flows
from the plain meaning of the expression "lawful authority"
and is consistent with its purpose and context. If the legislature
had wished to limit the scope of s. 74 to complaints to a "public
authority" instead of a "lawful authority" it would have said
so. [paras. 3, 38]
The plain meaning of s. 74 is reinforced by the labour
relations context. Whistleblower laws, such as s. 74, seek to
reconcile an employee's duty of loyalty to his or her employer
with the public interest in the suppression of unlawful activity.
The employees's duty of loyalty and the public's interest in
whistleblowing is best reconciled with the "up the ladder"
approach i.e. protecting employees who first blow the whistle
to the boss or other persons inside the employer organization
who have the "lawful authority" to deal with the problem. The
8
legislature wanted a workplace free of unlawful activity but it
did not specify prosecution as the only or even the preferred
method of bringing about that result. By withholding
whistleblower protection unless and until the employee goes
"outside" to the enforcement authorities of the state, the Court
of Appeal's narrow interpretation of s. 74 would discourage the
internal resolution of alleged misconduct. Failure by
whistleblowing employees "to try to resolve the matter
internally" is condemned by courts and labour arbitrators as
prima facie disloyal and inappropriate conduct. There is
nothing in s. 74 or surrounding context to suggest that the
Saskatchewan legislature in 1994 intended to expose "loyal"
employees to employer retaliation without a remedy. [paras.
16, 19, 23, 25, 26, 36]
M pursued an "up the ladder" reporting approach. Based
on the trial judge's findings, M was discharged because she
reported to a lawful authority (the International Union of Iron
Workers) the financial misconduct of her supervisors. The
alleged misconduct was an "activity that is or is likely to result
in an offence" within the meaning of s. 74. On a correct
interpretation of "lawful authority", the union's dismissal of M
violated s. 74(1)(a) of The Labour Standards Act. [paras. 42, 48]
4. Social democratic function
Unions in Canada have worked successfully for societal
reforms and policy change. These include successful
lobbying for legislation of workers compensation, human
rights, public healthcare, minimum employment standards,
and occupational health and safety. Unions also campaign
for third world human rights, the end of sweatshops,
environmental standards, abolition or reduction of postsecondary tuition fees, gender pay equity and employment
9
equity, etc.
Union organizing is important. It highlights and responds to
the collective nature of work as well as individual needs and
concerns.
Unions have some influence on government usually the
NDP. Little influence federally but some influence in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and B.C.
At the local level unions may ally with causes and
organizations. See social justice fund pp 190-1. See also the
Calgary and District Labour Council anti-racism project.
Unions educate of members and the public about social
issues.
5. Class conflict function
This is low in Canada compared with Latin America, France
and UK.
CLASS MOBILIZATION
Unions organize demonstrations, boycotts on many social
issues and this requires mobilization of the proletariat to use
Marx’s term.
The ANTI-NAFTA demonstrations were significant if
unsuccessful and prophetic. Privatization of health and
education are issues that affect the poor and unions participate
in street demonstrations.
10
SEE GAINERS ISSUE in Edmonton and the huge union
boycott.
Not all unions engage in all the listed activities. Nor are the
unions and their federations successful in lobbying for change.
Nevertheless they contribute to the democratic system by
challenging those in power and providing public access to
policy choices that might otherwise not be made public.
11