We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On June 19, 2012, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
introduced substantial legislative amendments to the Labour
Relations Act (Bill No. 37) and Public Service Collective
Bargaining Act (Bill No. 38) as part of the Government's
attempt to realize the following goals:
Maintenance of a positive labour relations climate in
Newfoundland and Labrador;
Maximizing job creation in the province; and
Maximizing economic benefits and employment relations
stability.
The amendments result from recommendations made in three
significant reviews relating to the labour relations framework in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister responsible for the Labour
Relations Agency expressed that the changes "reflect a
balanced approach and are the result of a considerable amount of
input from both labour organizations and employers".
The reviews considered include:
Final Report of the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry
Commission;
James Oakley Report on the Special Project Order (SPO)
provisions of the Labour Relations Act; and
Review of the Labour Relations Act conducted by the Employment
Relations Committee of the Strategic Partnership Council.
The provincial government hopes that the changes help to ensure
that legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador reflects current
practice in other jurisdictions. Highlights of the intended
amendments include:
Instituting a card-based certification system requiring
automatic certification in instances where 65 per cent of the
employees in the bargaining unit sign a union membership card. If
40 per cent to 64 per cent of the employees sign cards, a
certification vote would be required;
The Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Collective
Bargaining Act (PSCBA) would be amended to allow either party (the
employer in the case of the PSCBA) to request during collective
bargaining that a vote of the employees of the bargaining unit be
conducted to accept or reject either party's (the employer in
the case of the PSCBA) most recent offer. As this would
be a new requirement for the Labour Relations Board,
proclamation will occur once the board advises that appropriate
processes and procedures are established;
The Labour Relations Act would be amended to:
Recognize the right of an employer to communicate with
employees so long as the employer does not do so in a manner that
is intimidating, coercive, threatening or attempts unduly to exert
influence;
Require that the minister appoint a mediator where the parties
have failed to conclude a first collective agreement.
Impose time frames for the Labour Relations Board in relation
to the imposition of first collective agreements;
Require that parties to a collective agreement establish a
labour management committee on the written request of one of the
parties;
Provide additional powers to the Labour Relations Board to
address consequences of failure to bargain in good faith;
Redefine "special project" to reduce the required
construction period from three to two years;
Allow for regulations to prescribe either the geographic site
or the scope of work to be included or excluded from a Special
Project Order; and
Clarify that special project orders may overlap
temporally and geographically.
What this means to you
Providing automatic certification when 65 per cent of the
workers sign membership union cards would be a significant change.
Currently, unless there is an unfair labour practice, union
certification follows a vote by secret ballot. This gives the
employer some opportunity to communicate (within legal
restrictions) with its workforce regarding the benefits and
disadvantages of union certification. As proposed, unions could
place pressure on employees to sign membership cards that may or
may not be indicative of whether the employee is in favour of
certification.
Allowing employers to place the last offer to the membership for
a vote during collective bargaining would be a positive change for
employers. Unions would need to be mindful of employee support when
rejecting offers made during collective bargaining.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
Employment, Labour and Immigration Law in Canada Preview 
