Should I Join A Union? Maybe. But Do Your Homework

Toronto Labour Lawyer Brian Bell: In these tough economic times, some non-union employees who have lost their jobs may have stated, “I should have had a union,” or words to that effect.

While employers today may be taking every opportunity to gain concessions from unionized employees - which in some cases leads to closings - some employees might determine that their best response is to sign up with respective locals.

Firstly, let me say that choosing to belong to a union is the employees' choice. But whatever your decision, be informed before you make that choice. There are positives and negatives to the union route, and you should educate yourself about them.

Recently, I received a call from a man I'll call Rick. Several months prior to the call, Rick had signed the appropriate documentation to become a union member. He said a union representative had laid out all of the benefits of joining the union. It sounded good to Rick, and he signed on.

Unfortunately, after Rick had signed the document, the promises failed to materialize. Rick now wanted to “de-certify” from the union. He was somewhat surprised when he found out that the de-certification process was not so easy. In fact, for a case like Rick's, quashing his certification at that time was not even possible.

For all those in the workplace, know what you are getting into. Be informed. By doing so, you can make reasonable decisions that best suit your needs.

Brian Bell is a Labour and Employment Lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto.

Some Notes on Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell - Regarding the alcohol testing case currently headed for the Supreme Court, this type of thing has been an issue for years. I recall cases within the financial industry where institutions wanted to test employees for substance abuse, and ultimately the action was thrown out - primarily because of the answer to one question: is the testing necessary for the job (i.e. safety concerns)?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the next issue is whether the company’s testing program is too invasive. Ultimately, a blanket yes to testing has the potential for a very slippery slope.

In the current testing case, the company’s position is that testing is necessary for safety reasons, and given this article's content, I would agree.

I would also agree with the unions who say such a policy is not required where it infringes excessively on the rights of the workers. An additional valid point is whether there has to be an “incident” before an employer can introduce such a policy to protect other workers as well as themselves.

It remains unclear where the line should be drawn, and the Supreme Court will have to determine whether a line needs to be drawn at all. I'm looking forward to the outcome of the case.

Should Random Alcohol Tests Be Allowed in the Workplace?

Testing?

Here's a look at an interesting case that's heading to the Supreme Court. At issue is whether unionized workers should have to face random alcohol tests:

It’s a fight that began with one pulp-and-paper mill worker in Saint John, and a “zero” reading on a breath-analysis alcohol test six years ago. Now, it is headed to Canada’s highest court. 

The case, which pits the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 30 against Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., is being watched closely by employment lawyers across Canada, who say it could have broad implications.

Read the rest of the story here.

Union vs. Non-Union Legal Options

Brian Bell

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell - Pace Law Firm: I'd like to take a minute to talk about the employee/employer relationship and how it differs in union and non-union shops. Note that this is not a critique of either a unionized workplace or a non-unionized workplace. That discussion is best left to the workers in their place of employment.

What needs to be remembered is that the employer/employee relationship is different in a unionized place of work.  I sometimes receive phone calls from union members stating they have lost faith in their union representative, and that they want to take the employer to court themselves.  Unfortunately, I have to tell them they're out of luck. It simply isn't an option for union members.

Workers of a unionized environment have a Collective Agreement which outlines all of the terms and conditions of employment between the parties. These include grievance/arbitration procedures that form the basis for resolving disputes in the workplace.

It may be difficult for some workers to understand this, because the situation may leave them feeling that they have limited access to justice.  Not so.

Essentially, unionized workers must follow the Collective Agreement. It doesn't matter if the worker does not agree with the final outcome - the Collective Agreement does not provide that worker with an additional avenue to pursue their issue in a way that workers in a non-unionized environment might.

It may be difficult for some workers to understand this, because the situation may leave them feeling that they have limited access to justice. Not so. The grievance/arbitration process allows the worker/union to seek a resolution in a manner that is intended to be efficient, productive, less costly, and equally as time sensitive as it would be when proceeding through the courts.  Employees in a non-unionized workplace, on the other hand, are left to their own means in establishing the terms and conditions of employment, and in some cases even they make use of employment agreements to outline their terms.

In any event, if “arguments” are in place within either a non-unionized or unionized workplace, the employee is governed by the terms of their respective agreements. One does not really have any procedural advantage over the other, but it is worth remembering what their differences are.