A Court or Arbitration Award in Canada - Case Study Example

Critical analysis of a court case or arbitration award in Canada Order#331152 The Lively Seven represents group of seven employees who constituted the 100% staff of the TD Canada Trust bank branch located in Lively, Ontario. They were forcefully offered the union membership by the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) which they strongly denied. The union members forcefully entered the houses of employees and forcefully tried to get their signatures for union membership. The employees’ phone numbers were collected breaching the privacy rights and contacted them in odd hours. The employees strongly felt that the annual union membership fee of 3 % of their annual salary would be of little use in representing their rights through unions and hence they strongly denied the union membership. They represented to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) which is an adjudicating body under federal labor law in Canada. They sought justice under the contexts of union intimidation, misinformation and even invasion of privacy. However, the CIRB denied their rights for avoiding the union membership and justified the attempts of USWA in pressurizing the employees to register for union membership. CIRB mentioned that the acts of USWA have to be supported as they are well with in the purview of Canadian jurisdiction for labor laws. They didn’t even quote the valid reasons for the dismissal of rights of employees and clarified that the employees can represent their problems only to unions and CIRB but not to their employers. This case calls for the necessary timely reforms or amendments in Canadian labor laws which would protect the employee rights and make the unionization in organizations more responsible and transparent. Key words: USWA, CIRB, Lively Seven Selection of the case: Lively Seven case Review of Lively seven case Labor laws in Canada are mainly aimed at establishing the rules and regulations that decide labor relations between employees and employers. There is a strong opinion that the labor laws in the 19th century in Canada were restricted and outlawed and trade union activity was highly regulated. However, there was a shit at the end of 19th century the restrictions on trade union activity were almost removed and voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms for employees and employers were established. Unfortunately, the desirable changes in later years were not significant making the labor laws in Canada more union oriented than employee oriented. The Lively Seven case clearly illustrates this fact and demands for necessary reforms in Canadian labor laws. The government often considered organizations of employees to be illegal conspiracies that restrained trade. By the end of the 19th century, however, the government no longer legally restricted most trade union activity. In 1900 the federal Conciliation Act established voluntary dispute-settlement mechanisms for employees and employers. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act (1907) included compulsory conciliation, in which workers and employers were required to meet with a mediator prior to a legal work stoppage. Compulsory conciliation became a distinctive feature of the Canadian industrial relations system. The Lively Seven represents group of seven female employees who constituted the 100% staff of the TD Canada Trust bank branch located in Lively, Ontario. On December 20, 2004, the CIRB issued a notice to employees in which the information was provided regarding the union’s application to unionize them. Initial notice provided them 15 days to respond with any concerns or to request Intervenor Status. Interestingly, on December 22, 2004, another notice indicating the reduction of reply period from 15 days to 10 days which is very unreasonable. On December 31, 2004, the employees requested CIRB for intervenor status for which the acknowledgement was collected from CIRB on 5th January 2005. In later time, the lively seven employees were approached personally with out prior intimation and were forced to register under unions. The employees strongly felt that the payment of annual union membership fee (3 % of their annual salary) would be of no use in representing their rights through unions and hence they strongly denied the union membership. Rather they were with the opinion that the representation can be made either alone or with the help of friends in organization. The representation was made through letters to the CIRB which is an adjudicating body under federal labour law in Canada. They fought for the justice under the contexts of union intimidation, misinformation and even invasion of privacy. However, the CIRB denied their rights for avoiding the union membership and justified the attempts of USWA in pressurizing the employees to register for union membership. It further stated that the employees were unaware of the rules of the unionization process and hence they couldn’t understand the actual rule position. CIRB also mentioned that the acts of USWA have to be supported as they are well with in the purview of Canadian jurisdiction for labour laws. They didn’t even quote the valid reasons for the dismissal of rights of employees and clarified that the employees can represent their problems only to unions and CIRB but not to their employers. It gave poor explanation to the total case judgment after a period of 11 months in October 2006 neglecting the rights and freedom of the employees. The representation of Lively seven employees in Federal court also didn’t succeed and hence they filed the case in Supreme Court of Canada. This case certainly drew national and international media and public attention and paved the way for the implementation of necessary reforms or amendments in Canadian labor laws for protecting the employee rights. Analysis and Critique of the case Canadian labor laws allow the unionization of employees working in various organizations (Gilbert et al., 2000). The CIRB has been entrusted with the powers to decide about the union for employers. The unions are authorized to go for collective bargaining on behalf of employees and employees have to be become members of the union to whom the collective bargaining powers are allotted (Burkett et al., 2007). However, the relevance of present labor laws in Canada is severely questioned in some circumstances because of its negative affect on protecting the personal freedom of employees and right to freedom of association was also significantly denied due to forceful operation of unionization of employees in organizations. The example of the Lively Seven case in Canada in which a group of seven employees constituted total strength of the staff of the TD Canada Trust bank branch in Lively, Ontario is highly relevant in this context. The employees were not in a mood to join the union and hence they denied to register under the membership of union, unfortunately, they couldn’t follow their wish as the union concerned i.e. USWA forcefully tried to get their signatures for union membership. USWA was given complete rights for collective bargaining on behalf of Lively seven employees, however, they couldn’t convince the employees, instead breached the privacy rights of employees by making untimely personal visits to homes and by making untimely phone calls. The employees were forced to contribute the annual union membership fee which accounts for 3 % of their annual salary. Even when the employees are not in mood to utilize the services of union for their representation related to employment matters, the forceful methods of collecting the annual contribution is certainly against the right to freedom of thought and expression and hence it requires the reforms in labor laws in Canada. Once the justice was not provided to Lively Seven employees, they represented through writing to the CIRB under federal labor law in Canada. On the grounds of union intimidation, misinformation and even invasion of privacy, the complaint was lodged with CIRB and unfortunately the CIRB denied their rights for denying the union membership and to make the matter further worse, justified the attempts of USWA in pressurizing the employees to register for union membership. To the utter shock to the employees of Lively seven and their supporters world wide, CIRB didn’t even quote the valid reasons for the dismissal of rights of employees. More interestingly, it was stated that the employees can represent their problems only to unions and CIRB but not to their employers. This is really pathetic as far as the implementation of fundamental and human rights of employees are concerned. Unfortunately, in its next phase of verdict that was given after 8 months, no valid explanation was given which questions the very basic objective and nature of labor laws in Canada. The employees represented in Federal Court which also upheld the verdict of CIRD and didn’t pointed out the apathetic nature of CIRD and unions (Wendy Bird, 2007). The Lively seven employees got tremendous support from different sections from all the corners of the world in meeting their expenditure towards the legal proceedings. Hence it is right time to implement the necessary timely reforms or amendments in Canadian labor laws with a final aim of protecting the employee rights and make the unionization in organizations more responsible and transparent. Impact of the decision The present status of the ‘Lively Seven’ case verdict is not satisfactory as far as the genuine interests of the employees are concerned. However, it has been a grand success in creating mass awareness among the different sections of the society about the constraints of the existing labor laws in Canada. Undoubtedly, it drew maximum attention from press in the all corners of the world and opened the debate on reforming the existing labor laws in Canada. It also exposed the dominant nature of unions in suppressing the genuine rights of the employees. It also questioned the relevance of existing labor laws in Canada in protecting the benefits of the employees (Rudner et al., 2008). Moreover, it exposed the weakness of the present labor laws as they are not allowing the employees to represent in labor commission or labor board. The way in which the union members forcefully entered the houses of employees and forcefully tried to collect their signatures for union membership is to be condemned severely the excessive involvement of employers in employee matters is not desirable and hence this has to be controlled. The malfunctioning of CIRD has to be questioned and it has to be made accountable for causing inconvenience to the employees at work place. The denial of vote rights to the employees in representing their woes or sufferings has to be severely condemned. Keeping these points in consideration, one should hope that the lively seven employees would get proper justice in Supreme Court of Canada which will pave the way for better employee satisfaction and personal rights of freedom of association. References Burkett, B.W., McCaskill, M.K. & Gilbert, D.G. (2000). Canadian labor law. BNA books publication, P:790. ISBN-10: 1570185719. Gilbert, D.G., Burkett, B.W. and McCaskill, M.K. (2000). Canadian Labour and Employment Law for the U.S. Practitioner. Bureau of National Affairs publication. P:733. ISBN-10: 1570182140. Rudner, T. M., Colin, G.M.G., Brian, K. Q.C., Brian G. J.Q.C. & Peter, I. (2008). Canadian Employment Law Answers. Carswell publication. P:220. Wendy Bird. (2007). Lively Seven lose case against union. Northern Life.ca. Dated 18th September 2007. Read More