RSS FeedStrikers To Target Students…
Yesterday at 00:01, the London Transit Commission went on strike for the first time in almost 30 years. The local 741 Amalgamated Transit Union and the City of London are, depending on who you talk to, either close or far from a deal.
As I am fortunate enough to own a vehicle and I have offered my spare seats to pick up other law students. As I was driving in to pick up a friend, I was listening to the radio and I was glad to hear that UWO had decided to assist students by renting upward of 50 vans to drive students who live more than a 30 minute walk from campus to and from school.
The conversation quickly changed when in the hosts next breath he reported that Pat Hunniford, president of the local transit union, had declared that if UWO goes ahead with trying to provide transportation to its students, that his union would setup a picket line at UWO!
But, he warned, if the University of Western Ontario goes ahead with volunteer drivers using vans to move students, the union will put up picket lines at the campus.
Western’s unions have agreed not to cross those lines, he said.
“The students may get to classes, but they may not have anybody teaching them.”
The longer the strike goes on, the longer it will take for service to resume once a deal is signed, Hunniford added.
Although I understand the importance of unions, I feel that the potential of UWO’s unions holding a sympathy strike would do nothing more than hurt the students. However, I digress.
Back to the LTC picketing UWO’s attempt to provide an reasonable alternative for its students. I immediately thought of the legality of this. In my two months of law school, we have covered cases like this, where the court held that it was illegal to strike on private property (see: Harrison v. Carswell (1975), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200).
The next thing I thought, is whether the property flowing through UWO’s “boundaries” is actually considered private. For this we can refer back to Harrison v. Carswell where in that case the picketing was occurring on a shopping mall’s property. UWO much like a shopping mall has a direct invitation for people to come on its property to enjoy its use. The dissent in Harrison v. Carswell argued the mall was a public place and as such could be used as such “revocable only upon misbehaviour (and I need not spell out here what this embraces) or by reason of unlawful activity”
However, public and private property in Ontario are also included in Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 defines what property (aka premises) is:
“premises” means land and structures, or either of them, and includes,
(a) water,
(b) ships and vessels,
(c) trailers and portable structures designed or used for residence, business or shelter,
(d) trains, railway cars, vehicles and aircraft, except while in operation. (“lieux”) R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 1 (1).
As with this definition, it would be fully within the power of the UWO administration to prevent LTC picketers from setting up and preventing the transit of students to and from class. Although I am probably missing something under various Ontario labour laws, I am not really prepared to undertake a full research project into the legality of roaming strikes. Should my simple research turn out to be the law regarding this and should the LTC setup picket lines surrounding UWO, I would encourage the administration to take all necessary steps to ensure that students are not only able to have rides to school, but that classes will still occur.
Should the LTC begin to picket UWO and prevent students from obtaining a ride by UWO, any support held by students toward the union will quickly fall.
I applaud the university’s effort in assisting the students, and I, like many Londoners, hope the strike ends soon without holding the students or rest of London hostage in the time being.
If there is more by way of legality that you can add, please do so in the comments section… Thanks.
