Yesterday at 00:01, the London Transit Commission went on strike for the first time in almost 30 years. Â 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. Â 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. Â However, I digress.
Back to the LTC picketing UWO’s attempt to provide an reasonable alternative for its students. Â I immediately thought of the legality of this. Â 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:Â 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. Â For this we can refer back to Harrison v. Carswell where in that case the picketing was occurring on a shopping mall’s property. Â UWO much like a shopping mall has a direct invitation for people to come on its property to enjoy its use. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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.
Indeed, you are missing some pretty big components. In the 2002 Supreme Court case RWDSU v. Pepsi, the Court determined that, indeed, workers have the right to picket “businesses” that are “secondary” to the particular dispute. Imagine that, the Court upholding the freedoms of expression and assembly…
The University hiring “volunteers” to “help” students get to class is not a neutral act, as you assert. Organizing what essentially amounts to a private volunteer bus service to replace legally striking bus drivers amounts to one thing:
Scabbing.
If the University is going to scab out the strikers’ work (which is pretty hypocritical for an “enlightened” institution to do) they can and should expect picket lines. Students, rather than expressing a lack of ability to think about someone other than themselves, should be absolutely outraged that the University would help the City bleed their workers dry.
High-quality transit service depends on transit workers having good working standards.
Thanks for helping me out with some case law. With exams looming in the near future, as I mentioned, I do not have the time to undertake a research project to fully list all applicable cases. The one I did was just off the top of my 1L head.
I know this student and former union member, is not privy to the behind the scenes negotiation, however, a 11.6% (term 3 years) overall increase is a far cry from bleeding them out. It would be an “infusion” that would exceed any other city worker in the recent past.
“LTC drivers are seeking wage parity with drivers in other centres and some benefits matching city workers.”
I agree that transit workers are very important and integral part of any major urban centre. But to equate their services with those essential services such as Police, Fire, and EMS is like comparing apples to oranges.
Although I cannot find the exact figures for London, but Sarnia Police just settled a two year increase of 6.5%, and similar police contracts generally average 9% over 3 years.
In the end, I do not believe they should be receiving pay increases that are above other city employees, especially with London having the 2nd highest unemployment rate in Canada. Perhaps they should negotiate a contract with a shorter time period and then wait until the economy recovers before drawing the line in the sand.
I mostly support UWO and their efforts at bringing students to school. Student’s who pre-paid for a bus pass. Student’s who often live further than practical walking distance. And student’s like me, who just want to go to class, learn, and not have to fight their way through a picket line.
I fully support UWO and its priority, which is to its students, and not bowing to pressure tactics, and resisting the temptation to see our campus turned into what York’s was last year.
Interesting comments, the ATU Local 741 at no time was going to picket UWO or prevent the students from attending class. This can be confirm with both UWO Police Services and UWO Student Union. If a Union wishes to, they could set-up picket lines on city property, and if another Union wishes to honor that line it is up to the Union or it’s Members. In the past ATU Local 741 has never crossed a legal picket line at UWO and would expect some support in return. When you compare rates of pay never make the mistake of using percentage. There is a big difference between someone make over $100,000 at 3% than a person make $45,000. Transit worker are tired of working 60 hours per week, having no scheduled breaks, no lunch hours and working for an employer that believes washrooms are not important when planning a bus route. Remember The City of London funds transit at $.75/ride most other city fund transit at twice that rate and the one large private run system in York funds it at $3.42/ride. The problem is not the system but the funding from City Hall.