Labor & Employment Law

Using Strike Replacements

By Michael Fitzgibbon

Strikes and lockouts are never fun events.  No one "wants" these things.  Companies are in business to make a profit and employees want to work to provide for themselves and their families.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that a strike or lockout means that the union and company have failed, but it certainly means that their negotiations were unsuccessful in getting a negotiated deal.  Maybe that's lawyer-speak

I was interviewed yesterday by CBC Radio Sudbury on the thorny and emotional issue of using strike replacement workers.  Employers (in Ontario under the Labour Relations Act, 1995) are free to survive a strike through the use of replacement workers.  There is a narrow exception where they use "professional strike breakers" but that is exceedingly limited.  Some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, have anti-replacement laws (derogatorily and colloquially called anti-"scab" laws) preventing, except in limited circumstances, the use of replacements during a strike. 

The decision to operate during a strike is a complex one (e.g. the City of Toronto decided not to fully engage replacement workers during the recent strike and were criticized by some for that decision).  In Sudbury, news that Vale Inco has decided to engage replacements to continue operations has generated criticism by others.  

Employers have a right in Ontario to operate during a strike.  Whether they chose to do so is another matter.  The short (and sometimes long) term impact of this decision on labour relations can be significant. If labour relations are power relations as I was taught in my Industrial Relations days at McGill, then either party should be at liberty to use all lawful means to shift the balance of power in its favour with a view to having the other side yield to accepting its terms.  

Full post as published by Thoughts from a Management Lawyer on August 28, 2009 (boomark / email).