Category: Labour Law

Categories
Labour Law

A Primer on Collective Bargaining for Ontario Employers

Ontario employers in unionized sectors can face unique challenges and considerations regarding collective bargaining with unionized employees. Whether you are a seasoned human resource professional or a business owner entering into your first negotiation process, it is essential to understand the fundamental principles and practices of collective bargaining to facilitate constructive dialogue and reach mutually beneficial agreements for all parties involved.

This blog provides a primer on collective bargaining for Ontario employers with an overview of collective agreements and the collective bargaining process, shedding light on key concepts, legal frameworks, and best practices.

What Is a Collective Agreement?

A collective agreement is a written contract between an employer and a union that outlines various terms and conditions pertaining to the employees in a bargaining unit. This agreement forms the foundation of the relationship between unionized employees and their employers. Some common examples of terms and conditions covered in a collective agreement may include:

  • Employee wages and benefits;
  • The obligations of the employer, the employees, and the union; and
  • A dispute resolution process (often a grievance and arbitration process).

In administering the collective agreement, the employer must act reasonably, fairly, in good faith, and in a manner consistent with the collective agreement in its entirety.

What Is Collective Bargaining?

Collective bargaining refers to the process during which a union and an employer negotiate the terms and conditions of a collective agreement. Collective bargaining negotiation usually begins when the employer or union gives the other party a notice of desire to bargain, as outlined under section 16 of Ontario’s Labour Relations Act.

The ultimate goal of the collective bargaining process is to reach a mutually acceptable agreement between the union and the employer.

Navigating the Collective Bargaining Process

Section 59 provides that either party to a collective agreement may give written notice to the other party of its desire to bargain within 90 days of the expiration of the existing collective agreement, with a view to the renewal with or without modifications. A notice to bargain may take various forms and is often followed by a request for information. Employers should also be aware that a union may request information in excess of the required information, so requests should be carefully examined.

Section 17 of the Labour Relations Act requires the parties to meet within 15 days of the notice of desire to bargain unless otherwise agreed upon. If the union and employer cannot agree on the terms of a collective agreement, either party may ask the Minister of Labour to appoint a conciliation officer under section 18 of the Labour Standards Act. This officer will subsequently help the parties in their efforts to reach an agreement through “conciliation”.

The Parties’ Obligations During the Collective Bargaining Process

Section 17 of the Labour Relations Act also provides that the parties “shall bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement.” This requires the parties to want to reach an agreement and act in a manner consistent with wanting to reach an agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board requires parties to bargain in good faith and encourages “rational, informed discussion, thereby minimizing the potential for unnecessary industrial conflict”. In other words, the parties must ensure they do not engage in unfair labour practices or otherwise interfere with each other’s bargaining rights. To engage in meaningful discussions, each party should state its position and accompanying justification and listen to what the other side says about the matter. Once a party presents its proposals, it cannot add new and unrelated ones but may offer counter-proposals.

How to Prepare for Collective Bargaining

There are several steps an employer should take before beginning negotiations, as a collective agreement will set the workplace rules, and as such, adequate preparation is crucial. First, it is important to review the existing collective agreement carefully. A full read of the collective agreement will allow employers to identify problem areas and note provisions that require an update. Some questions employers should consider during a collective agreement review may be:

  • Are there new or revised job titles?
  • Have any legislative changes been made?
  • Have any problems already been identified, perhaps through grievances?
  • Are there prior proposals that should be revisited?
  • Are there practices or policies that should be implemented or discontinued?

This agreement review also allows for a clean-up of the agreement overall, such as cross-referencing provision numbers and references and correcting typographical errors.

An employer may also conduct external research to determine industry standards and benchmarks on particular matters and review other collective agreements.

After an employer has thoroughly reviewed the collective agreement, it is vital to prepare and draft proposals and identify desired additions and requested deletions from the collective agreement. Employers must also decide on priorities for bargaining and a budget.

How to Approach the Collective Bargaining Table

During the collective bargaining process, it is crucial to ensure that employers focus on the underlying problem rather than the union’s specific proposals. Employers need to ask questions to clarify their understanding of the proposals. When an employer truly understands a problem area identified by the union, they are better suited to propose alternative solutions which will work for both parties.

Employers should be creative and forward-thinking with their proposals. However, they should strive to use plain language in their proposals and agreed-upon terms to be incorporated into the collective agreement to avoid confusion or ambiguity, which may result in unintended consequences or legal issues later on.

How Can a Labour Law Lawyer Help?

Once a final collective agreement has been agreed upon, it is critical to ensure it is thorough and adequately drafted, as a poorly drafted agreement can create significant operational and financial hardships for employers. By working with an experienced labour law lawyer, an employer can quickly identify potential liability issues and rest assured that their interests are preserved from the outset of the negotiation process. A lawyer can help strengthen an employer’s position through comprehensive planning and extensive preparation of bargaining proposals before the bargaining process. Beyond the collective bargaining process, a lawyer will also advocate on an employer’s behalf during dispute resolution processes, such as bad faith bargaining applications, conciliation hearings, and first contract arbitrations.

Contact Willis Business Law in Windsor-Essex for Trusted Advice on Collective Agreements and Representation in Collective Bargaining

Collective bargaining can be an overwhelming and expensive process for employers, so working with a trusted labour law lawyer is essential to protect your interests. At Willis Business Law in Windsor-Essex, our talented labour and employment lawyers draw upon their extensive experience representing employers at all stages of the collective bargaining process to ensure that the process runs smoothly. We help employers prepare for negotiations and work with them to develop comprehensive legal strategies to ensure their interests remain protected from negotiations to the administration of the final collective agreement. To learn how we can assist you in the collective bargaining process, contact us online or at 519-945-5470.

Categories
Employment Law Labour Law

Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Bill 124 Violates Unionized Workers’ Charter Rights

The Ontario Government introduced Bill 124 (also known as the “Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act”) in June 2019. The legislation was intended to cap the wages of unionized and non-unionized public sector employees for a period of three years to help eliminate a financial deficit. However, this legislation was met with significant displeasure by unions and employees alike, which resulted in the constitutionality of the legislation being assessed by both the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

This blog provides oversight of Bill 124 and its procedural history. It also reviews the decisions from both courts and considers the future impacts of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision, finding that the legislation is unconstitutional.

What Is Ontario Bill 124?

Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act (“Bill 124”) was introduced in June 2019 and received royal assent on November 7, 2019. Bill 124 is a relatively new law that capped wage increases for public sector workers for three years. It affected those working for public sector employees, including those working in public hospitals, universities, schools, non-profits receiving at least $1 million in Government funding, and long-term care homes.

The intention of Bill 124 was for its application to be “exceptional and time-limited” as it generally limited wage increases to one percent annually, subject to certain exceptions. Bill 124 was met with significant criticism from the unionized and nonunionized employees it affected but received even more backlash from unions representing public sector workers.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice Declares Bill 124 Unconstitutional

In 2022, Ontario English Catholic Teachers Assoc. v. His Majesty came before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in which several applicants challenged Bill 124’s wage restraint provisions. They argued Bill 124 violated their rights under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), which provides for unionized employees’ right to freedom of association and related collective bargaining rights.

The Court found in favour of several unions who argued Bill 124 was unconstitutional, acknowledging it infringed on the applicants’ rights to freedom of association (and this infringement was not saved under section 1 of the Charter). The Court noted Bill 124 did not impact the applicants’ freedom of speech or equality rights. Accordingly, the Court struck down Bill 124 in its entirety, with Justice Koehnen noting:

“[t]he Charter protects not just the right to associate, but also the right to a meaningful process in which unions can put on the table those issues that are of concern to workers and have them discussed in good faith.”

Government Appeals Court’s Declaration That Bill 124 Is Unconstitutional

Immediately following this decision, the Ontario Government indicated it would appeal. When the matter came before the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Government argued the lower court “erred in holding that the financial impact of the Act’s limits on the compensation increases substantially interferes with the respondent’s rights to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.” It also claimed that the lower court mischaracterized the critical reason the legislation was put into place, arguing that it was intended to “manage the province’s finances in a responsible manner and to protect the sustainability of public services.”

The Court of Appeal reviewed the two-part test to assess whether a “substantial interference” with Charter rights under section 2(d) occurred. The test requires the Court of Appeal to:

  1. Assess the importance of the matter to the process of collective bargaining; and
  2. Consider the manner and extent to which the measure impacts the applicants’ collective right to good faith bargaining and consultation.

Legislation Substantially Interferes With Applicants’ Charter Rights

In this case, the Court of Appeal acknowledged compensation is a matter of central importance to the collective bargaining process. Therefore, it determined the first limb of the test was satisfied. Regarding the second limb of the test, the Court of Appeal decided that there had been a substantial interference with the applicants’ Charter rights due to four key findings:

  • There was a lack of meaningful consultation or significant collective bargaining before the implementation of Bill 124;
  • Bill 124 contained a broad definition of “compensation” that significantly restricted what unions could negotiate, noting that “the cap does not just apply to salaries. It also applies to any kind of benefit or compensation that can be monetized, such as sick days, vacation days and other benefits;
  • The terms contained within Bill 124 did not match other collective agreements which were negotiated in the public sector during the same time period, which did allow for wage increases and additional changes in compensation; and
  • Bill 124 contained an “illusory” process for exemptions. The Court of Appeal noted the Government had only granted one of many requests, with the right to strike not being a viable alternative in the circumstances. It further found no evidence presented to indicate what process or criteria the Minister uses in evaluating such requests.

Is the Substantial Infringement Saved by Section 1 of the Charter?

Section 1 of the Charter: “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” As such, in assessing whether the substantial interference by Bill 124 was justified under section 1 of the Charter, the Court of Appeal applied the R. v. Oakes, which requires the Court to:

  1. Determine whether the legislative objective relates to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important; and
  2. Whether the party seeking to rely on section 1 of the Charter has proven the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified through a proportionality test involving three key components:
    1. The measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective;
    2. The means should impair the right in question as little as possible; and
    3. There must be proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective.

Court of Appeal Upholds Declaration of Bill 124’s Unconstitutionality in Relation to Unionized Employees

When applying the test, the Court of Appeal found the Government had established that Bill 124 addressed a pressing and substantial objective (responsibly managing the province’s finances while protecting the sustainability of public services). However, this objective was not rationally connected to the legislation insofar as certain workers were not concerned. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that there were more “minimally impairing” means of achieving this goal.

In particular, Justice Favreau noted:

“organized public sector workers, many of whom are women, racialized and/or low-income earners, have lost the ability to negotiate for better compensation or even better work conditions that do not have a monetary value.”

Bill 124 Should Not Be Completely Struck Out

Upon conclusion of the analysis above, the Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court’s findings that Bill 124 was unconstitutional due to the infringement it had upon the applicants’ rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining under section 2(d) of the Charter. As such, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision only in relation to unionized employees who were afforded such protections under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal went on to acknowledge, however, that the lower court erred in striking out the statute in its entirety and noted that “[t]he rights protected by s. 2(d) of the Charter do not apply in the same way to non-represented [non-unionized] employees”. Accordingly, the Court found that Bill 124 is only unconstitutional as it applies to the employees covered within it.

What Does This Mean for the Future of Bill 124?

Following the release of the Court of Appeal’s decision on February 12, 2024, the Ontario Government stated it would not appeal the matter further and would be taking steps to repeal Bill 124 in its entirety. In response to the Court of Appeal’s acknowledgment that the decision has different effects for unionized and non-unionized employees, the Government also said it would implement regulations to exempt non-unionized and non-associated workers from Bill 124 until it is repealed.

Without the constraints of Bill 124, public sector employers now have greater flexibility in resuming wage negotiations for all employees. However, the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014 continues to apply to particular executives under a limited number of employers, and this decision has not affected applicable compensation restrictions.

Contact the Employment & Labour Lawyers at Willis Business Law for Trusted Guidance and Advice in Windsor-Essex County

The skilled labour and employment law lawyers at Willis Business Law in Windsor regularly advise private and public sector employers on issues arising from various labour and employment-related issues, such as contract negotiation, collective bargaining matters, and dispute resolution. Our team remains atop the everchanging legislative landscape governing workplaces across the province. By helping you understand your obligations as an employer and ensuring you stay informed of upcoming legislative amendments, our employment law team can help you remain compliant while mitigating the risk of future disputes.

From our office in downtown Windsor, Willis Business Law helps clients throughout Windsor-Essex manage their legal needs. To speak with a member of our team regarding your labour or employment law matter, contact us online or at 519-945-5470.

Categories
Labour Law

Navigating Grievances & Labour Arbitrations: A Guide for Unionized Employers

In any employment relationship, unionized or not, the emergence of conflicts is an inevitable reality. However, for workers in unionized environments in Ontario, the pathway to resolution lies in the formalized mechanism of union grievances as outlined in a collective agreement. From the initiation of a complaint to its resolution, the steps involved are crucial to maintaining a healthy and harmonious work environment. Accordingly, it is vital that unionized employers have a comprehensive understanding of the grievance process to address and resolve concerns in a fair and timely manner.

This blog explores the grievance process, from the initial filing to the arbitration stage, and sheds light on the supporting legal foundations and mechanisms. It also provides unionized employers practical insights into navigating the grievance landscape.

What Is a Grievance?

Conflicts in a unionized workplace are typically addressed and resolved through the grievance process. As the Ontario Ministry of Labour explains, a grievance is a written complaint alleging that a collective agreement has been violated in some manner. A collective agreement will outline what constitutes a grievance, generally defined as a difference between the parties arising out of a complaint, dispute or alleged violation of the agreement’s interpretation, application or administration. It will also identify the parties who may file and respond to a grievance.

Some of the common issues resulting in a grievance include, but are not limited to:

Understanding Grievances and Labour Arbitrations in Ontario

Labour disputes and grievances can have significant financial implications and workplace impacts. A grievance arbitration is only pursued if the dispute is unresolved during the grievance process. As such, the arbitration will provide a final and binding decision to resolve a conflict between the unionized employer and workers (through their union). Such a process aims to resolve the dispute without causing a work stoppage.

Ontario’s Labour Relations Act requires every collective agreement to provide a mechanism through which a final and binding settlement can be determined in the event of a dispute. However, if a process is not included, section 48(2) of the Labour Relations Act sets out wording for such a mechanism that is deemed to be incorporated into the collective agreement.

Most labour arbitrations take place before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. However, some complaints must be heard by other tribunals. For example, a complaint about discrimination in the workplace is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board

In most cases, the matters the Ontario Labour Relations Board hears are highly technical and involve applications where legal counsel for the employer and union lead the process. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has jurisdiction to handle a variety of applications under various pieces of legislation, including, but not limited to:

The Arbitration Process

If a matter is not resolved during the grievance process, either party can take the dispute to arbitration. Arbitration operates like an informal court hearing, and the parties may select the arbitrator by agreement or ask for an appointment from the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development.

The arbitration process generally begins with the applicable party filing the appropriate forms. The responding party may then address the application by filing a response. The application and response must adhere to particular steps and procedures outlined by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

During the arbitration, a neutral third party will hear submissions and review evidence provided by the employer and union. Facts must either be agreed to by both parties or proved by witnesses and other documents. The arbitrator ultimately decides the outcome of the matter and issues a final, binding decision with which the parties must comply. The arbitrator must file a copy of their decision (also referred to as “awards”) with the Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development, in accordance with the Labour Relations Act.

The Benefits of Skilled Legal Representation in Labour Arbitrations

Employers are recommended to seek proactive legal advice from a qualified labour lawyer as soon as possible in the grievance process to ensure their rights are protected and mitigate conflict escalation. Labour lawyers are indispensable allies for unionized employers who can guide their clients through the intricacies of the arbitration process and offer invaluable insights into legal precedents, collective bargaining agreements, and procedural nuances based on their legal knowledge and prior arbitration experience.

Labour lawyers also play a pivotal role in identifying, formulating and presenting compelling arguments on behalf of unionized employers during arbitration hearings. By analyzing the specific details of a dispute, labour lawyers can craft a robust strategy that aligns with the interests and goals of the employer while simultaneously adhering to the legal framework that governs labour relations and the alternative dispute resolution process.

Furthermore, a skilled labour lawyer can offer advice on compliance with labour laws, helping unionized employers navigate potential pitfalls and mitigate risks before disputes escalate to the arbitration stage. Overall, labour lawyers become strategic partners in the negotiation and arbitration processes, empowering unionized employers to assert their rights, uphold the integrity of collective agreements, and contribute to a harmonious and legally compliant workplace. By deploying a dynamic and prudent approach, unionized employers can build a strong labour relations strategy in the workplace.

Contact the Trusted Labour Lawyers at Willis Business Law in Windsor-Essex for Top-Tier Representation in Arbitration

The knowledgeable labour lawyers at Willis Business Law regularly advise unionized employers of their rights and options in labour disputes and arbitrations. Whether you require advice on workplace policies and procedures or representation in the collective bargaining process, our lawyers can help. We work with public and private sector employers throughout Windsor-Essex County and the surrounding areas to develop unique and reliable labour law solutions tailored to your needs.

To learn more about the labour law services Willis Business Law offers, contact us online or call 519-945-5470 to schedule an initial consultation with a member of our dynamic labour law group.

Categories
Employment Law Labour Law Workplace Policies Wrongful Dismissal

Does Mandatory Unpaid Leave for Unvaccinated Workers Constitute Constructive Dismissal?

After COVID-19 vaccines became widely available to the public, many employers in Canada sought to implement vaccination policies for their employees. If an employee did not comply with the policy and did not have a valid medical exemption, they could face significant consequences, including the imposition of unpaid leave. However, many of these policies, and the rights of employers, have since been challenged.

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia dealt with an employee who commenced a wrongful dismissal action against her employer after being placed on unpaid leave due to non-compliance with the employer’s vaccination policy.

First Court Decision of Non-Unionized Employee Placed on Unpaid Leave for Failure to Comply with COVID-19 Vaccination Policy

The case of Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc. is the first time the courts have considered whether a non-unionized employee can be placed on an unpaid leave of absence for their failure to comply with an employer’s mandatory vaccination policy.

The employee worked as an accounting professional with Gateway Property Management, which company was acquired by Tribe Management Inc. in 2021. The employee signed a new employment contract with Tribe in July 2021, which required her to comply with all company policies “amended from time to time by Tribe in its discretion.” The contract further stated that if the employee was dismissed by Tribe without cause, she would be entitled to notice (or pay in lieu thereof) of 12 months’ base salary, plus one additional month of base salary for every completed year of employment, to a maximum of 24 months.

Employer Implemented COVID-19 Policy in Response to Public Health Information

In September 2021, Tribe learned that 35 out of 220 employees had not yet been vaccinated. Based on existing public health information, the employer felt this number was unacceptably high. The employer’s Vice President of Human Resources circulated a policy to all employees via email on October 5, 2021, requiring all employees, subject to medical or religious exemptions, to become “fully vaccinated” by November 24, 2021. Only the employee and one of her colleagues failed to comply.

The employee’s objection to the vaccination was based on her review of the literature and her observance of health complications in family members after receiving their vaccines. The employee clarified this reasoning to her employer and suggested alternative accommodations. However, the employer advised that there would be no exceptions to the policy.

Employee Claimed Constructive Dismissal Arising from Unpaid Leave

On November 25, 2021, the employer told the employee she would be on unpaid leave from December 1, 2021 to February 28, 2022. A few weeks into her leave, the employee requested to return to work; failing which, she would commence a claim for constructive dismissal. The employer declined and placed the employee on unpaid leave indefinitely until she complied with the policy. The employee subsequently resigned and filed her claim.

The plaintiff employee claimed she was placed on an unpaid leave of absence due to non-compliance with the policy. She alleged the employer breached its contractual obligations, therefore entitling her to consider the employment relationship as having been constructively terminated. The plaintiff further claimed that the policy was unreasonable as it did not make an exception for employees working almost entirely from home

The employer claimed that the policy was a reasonable response to the uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic and was authorized under the employment contract’s terms. The employer argued that the employee chose not to comply with the policy and, as a result, any consequences to the employee were foreseeable. The employer further claimed that any losses to the employee, were caused by the employee’s failure to mitigate her losses by choosing not to get vaccinated. The employer told the employee that she could have returned to her job anytime if she received the vaccination.

B.C. Supreme Court Finds Employee Not Constructively Dismissed

The Court found that the vaccination policy was reasonable and lawful. The Court also took judicial notice of the transmissibility and potential effects of COVID-19. After a consideration of relevant arbitration cases, it held that the employer’s decision to place the employee on unpaid leave was reasonable in the unprecedented times during which the policy was implemented.

Consequently, Justice MacNaughton dismissed the employee’s claim, finding there was no constructive dismissal as it was the employee’s choice not to get vaccinated.

Ontario Arbitrator Upholds Mandatory Vaccination Policy Despite Government Directive Being Lifted

Meanwhile in Ontario, Arbitrators have been asked to consider similar fact scenarios involving the employer’s implementation of mandatory vaccination policies. In Maple Leaf Foods Inc., Brantford Facility v UFCW, Local 175, an Arbitrator upheld a mandatory vaccination policy requiring all employees and contractors to be fully vaccinated by March 31, 2022, barring exemptions per any human rights grounds. The Arbitrator found the policy reasonable and enforceable and noted that other health and safety measures were insufficient to protect the workplace absent the vaccination policy. Further, the policy was consistent with the collective agreement and remained reasonable in light of recent changes to COVID guidelines adopted by the government and the employer.

In August 2022, the Arbitrator in the case of Regional Municipality of York v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 905 (Long Term Care Unit) upheld a mandatory vaccination policy in a long-term home care facility that required employees to have three doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccination. The employer implemented their policy after the Government of Ontario directed that all long-term care home workers must have three doses of the COVID vaccination. The policy was upheld despite the Government of Ontario revoking the directive in March 2022.

When mandatory vaccination policies began to roll out during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ontario Human Rights Commission indicated that mandates are “generally permissible under the Human Rights Code as long as protections are put in place to make sure people who are unable to be vaccinated for Code-related reasons are reasonably accommodated.” Workplace mandates must also comply with privacy laws.

Reopening Ontario

Under the Plan to Safely Reopen Ontario, mandatory vaccination policy requirements have mostly been revoked. However, when faced with policy cases, decision-makers will review any applicable employment or collective agreements, the employer’s statutory obligations, the nature of the workplace, and the health information available when the policy was implemented.

Employers must take every reasonable precaution to protect the health and safety of their employees under Ontario’s employment and labour laws. In doing so, they can maintain some of the precautions put in place to address COVID-19 but must be wary that precautionary measures taken in 2021 may not be regarded as such in 2022 and beyond. Therefore, employers should understand that these cases are fact-specific, and additional considerations may be relevant when determining the reasonableness of policies and enforcement measures in the future.

Willis Business Law Provides Advises Employers on Wrongful Dismissal Claims and Vaccination Policies

The knowledgeable employment lawyers at Willis Business Law have extensive experience guiding employers through various employment law and labour law matters, including wrongful dismissal claims and navigating workplace policies. Our lawyers remain current on the latest legal cases to help ensure that employers understand their rights concerning workplace policies to ensure they effectively mitigate risk and litigation.

Willis Business Law is located in Windsor and serves clients throughout Windsor-Essex and surrounding areas. If you have questions or concerns regarding workplace policy implementation or are defending a termination claim, contact us online or call our office at 519-945-5470 to speak with a member of our employment law team.

Categories
Business Law Labour Law

Windsor’s Amazon Delivery Warehouse

This year, Windsor was been selected as the location for Amazon Canada’s newest delivery station. The megacorporation purchased a 27-acre parcel of land near Central Avenue and Plymouth Drive on April 1, 2022. Those who have resided in Windsor for some time will know that this is the land formerly used by Chrysler’s Pillette Road Truck Assembly Plant, which operated in Windsor from that location from 1974 until 2003. The land was purchased this year for nearly $12 million.

Operations for the delivery station are set to start in 2024. This blog post provides some insight into the new development.

What is a delivery station?

A delivery station is an essential component of Amazon’s order process. This is the location from which Amazon packages are received from Amazon fulfillment and sortation centres and loaded into vehicles to deliver to consumers. In other words, the delivery station is the last stop before product reaches the homes of Canadians.

Workers at the delivery station receive orders by truck and prepare them for delivery. They load conveyor belts, transport and stage deliveries, and even use technology for the transport of larger items like furniture and appliances.

It is yet to be confirmed exactly how many jobs Windsor’s Amazon Delivery Warehouse will create, but early projections suggest it will create hundreds of opportunities.

Why Windsor was the selected location

As residents and companies operating in Windsor know, Windsor is a great city with a lot of potential. Windsor is strategically located at an important gateway between Canada and the United States. Notably, the city possesses North America’s most used international cargo crossing, the Ambassador Bridge. It also provides access to the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the Canadian Pacific Railway tunnel, and the Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry. From Windsor, it is easy to access both Highway 401 in Canada and I-95 in the United States, providing convenient travel across major markets in both countries.

Employees hope to unionize

With new jobs come fresh considerations of how employment and labour law can protect hopeful employees. There are important developments happening across Canada in other Amazon warehouses that may have a ripple effect at the upcoming Windsor warehouse. Currently, Teamsters has created a Canada-wide campaign to organize a union for Amazon workers.

Despite pressure from Teamsters, an Amazon spokesperson, Ryma Boussafa, has indicated that the company does not feel that unionization is the best option for its employees.

Unionized vs. non-unionized employment relationships

The debate regarding the unionization of Amazon’s employees is one echoed across many industries in Ontario. Whether a workplace is governed by a collective agreement (and is, therefore, unionized) or not has a significant impact on the employer-employee relationship.

The relationship between non-union employees and their employer is usually governed by an employment contract. By contrast, union employees can understand their rights and entitlements with respect to their employer through a collective agreement. Unlike the employment contract, a collective agreement applies to all union employees rather than to individuals. This ensures consistency across each class of employee.

The negotiation process also varies between unionized and non-unionized employment relationships. If a non-union employee wants a raise, for instance, they might schedule a one-on-one meeting with their employer to plead their case for higher wages. When an employee is part of a union, raises must be negotiated through the collective agreement. Together, members of the union must determine if they actually want to ask for the raise. Similarly, because unions work on a collective basis, there are specific rules for when and how an employee may be promoted.

Union employees have a different relationship with their employers

As with any employer facing a potential unionization drive, Amazon will need to consider the rights granted to unionized employees. Generally, union employees have more power and more job protection. Because a union represents and acts as a group, various actions they take, such as striking, have the potential to disrupt their employer’s operations significantly. They also may be entitled to more regular wage increases.

However, unionization is not solely negative for the employer. Working under a collective agreement can help create safer worksites and a fairer work culture.

Contact the Employment and Labour Lawyers at Willis Business Law for Questions About Unionization

Whether employees of Windsor’s new Amazon delivery warehouse decide to unionize is yet to be seen. However, the Teamsters vs. Amazon debate echoes many of the questions faced by employers across Ontario regarding unionization.

The skilled employment and labour lawyers at Willis Business Law provide robust, pragmatic advice and legal solutions regarding the unionization process and collective bargaining to employers. The firm helps to secure employers’ financial and operational needs while reducing their overall risk.

Located in the heart of Windsor’s financial district, Willis Business Law also assists clients with mediation services, corporate governance, privacy issues and more. To schedule a consultation with a lawyer, please call 519-945-5470 or contact the firm online.

Exit mobile version