A United Nurses of Alberta local has dedicated funds to fight the Alberta Pension Plan, but a watchdog on unions doubts this use of dues would stand a court challenge.A document shared with the Western Standard showed a local AGM of UNA last December approved a contribution of up to $200,000 to the Alberta Federation of Labour. The funds would be used to oppose Alberta opting out othe Canadian Pension Plan to form a provincial plan.In an interview, John Mortimer, president of LabourWatch, said Canadian unions have more privileges and take more liberties than anywhere else in the world."In Canada union members and non-members alike, pretty much 99% of collective agreements in workplaces require members and non-members alike to pay full union dues. Second, those union dues can be used for anything that the union wants to use them on," Mortimer told Western Standard."There is no other country in the world I know of with that scheme in place. What is typical in other countries is that if they're paying any dues at all, they're paying more than non-members."Mortimer said that in the Council of Europe, which has 47 member countries (in excess of the 27 countries in the European Union), the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2007 that non-members dues can never be used for anything other than bargaining grievances and administering the collective agreement.The expert said much of Canadian union law derives from an arbitrator's decision to fix a massive strike of 19,000 Ford workers in Windsor in 1946. The union wanted every worker to become a member or be fired from their job, but the arbitrator only said he would make the workers pay union dues since they benefited from collective bargaining. The principles laid out, called the Rand formula, were subsequently adopted in labour laws across Canada.Mortimer said in New Zealand, if an employee joins a company where there is a union, they have the choice of becoming a union member, or paying a bargaining fee to gain from collective bargaining but not have their dues to go to political causes, or stay out of the union entirely and have a "direct working relationship with the employer" to "negotiate my own terms and conditions of employment with the employer.""In Australia, you can't be forced to be a union member to keep your job, and you can't be forced to pay union dues to keep your job if the workplace is unionized," Mortimer explained."Not even the Labour Party enforced union membership historically in Australia."The RAND formula was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991 by Francis (Merv) Lavigne. The Ontario community college teacher was involuntarily made a Member of the Ontario Public Services Employees Union (OPSEU) even though the collective agreement did not require him to become an OPSEU member as a condition of employment.Lavigne brought an application for declaratory relief against the union and argued the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, which gave the union the power to allocate funds to causes of their choosing, violated his charter rights of freedom of expression and association.The court unanimously held that the Charter applied in this case because obligation to pay dues could be attributed to government, but also refused to grant Lavigne the relief he requested.The LabourWatch website says the Levine decision is complicated to interpret."Some observers say that the majority decision held there was a violation of Lavigne’s freedom of association (section 2(d) of the Charter), that the Rand formula interferes with the freedom from compelled association, what is generally known in international human rights terms as the negative right of non-association. However, the majority ruled that such interference was justified under section 1 of the Charter. The majority decision held that the use of the union dues did not constitute forced expression, and so there was no violation of the freedom of expression," the site explained."Ultimately the Court upheld the union’s ability to collect full dues from non-Members of a union in a unionized workplace and the union’s ability to use dues for political and other purposes that the individual employee might be opposed to."In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada's Cutting and Coring decision addressed whether a Quebec law to force construction workers to join a union was constitutional. It was also complicated, as LabourWatch explains."The Supreme Court of Canada decided (8-1) that there is a negative right to not associate under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 2d), the Right to Freedom of Association. The Court also decided (5-4) that the Quebec legislation violated the right to not associate. However, the Court ultimately decided (5-4), under Section 1 of the Charter, that the Quebec legislation was a justifiable denial of that right in a free and democratic society given the history of labour relations in Quebec’s construction industry. The history the court summarized was that of union violence."Mortimer said the Quebec legislation was partly justified by the courts because it stopped violent confrontations. Because there is no such situation in Alberta, he believes if a UNA member wanted to challenge the use of dues to fight a pension plan, they would have a good chance."I believe that the use of union dues by the union of these Alberta workers is in contradiction to the Levine decision and the advanced Cutting and Coring decision. And I don't think you have a history of union violence in Alberta that can justify this action. It just needs to be contested."In a press release, UNA said it 'stands proudly' behind allocating funds to fight the proposed new pension plan."This was a decision of the Executive Board and UNA stands proudly behind its participation in the fight organized by the Alberta Federation of Labour to protect its members’ retirement security as one of the core functions of our union," the release said. "UNA believes strongly that it owes it to all current members, and all retired members including those who now live in other provinces, to fight hard to protect their retirement security, which is best ensured by participation in the Canada Pension Plan."In response to a query by the Western Standard, UNA Director of Labour Relations David Harrigan replied by email."Our Board members regularly consults with the membership. If you are asking if we [put] the issue to a specific plebiscite, the answer is no, we did not," he wrote.
A United Nurses of Alberta local has dedicated funds to fight the Alberta Pension Plan, but a watchdog on unions doubts this use of dues would stand a court challenge.A document shared with the Western Standard showed a local AGM of UNA last December approved a contribution of up to $200,000 to the Alberta Federation of Labour. The funds would be used to oppose Alberta opting out othe Canadian Pension Plan to form a provincial plan.In an interview, John Mortimer, president of LabourWatch, said Canadian unions have more privileges and take more liberties than anywhere else in the world."In Canada union members and non-members alike, pretty much 99% of collective agreements in workplaces require members and non-members alike to pay full union dues. Second, those union dues can be used for anything that the union wants to use them on," Mortimer told Western Standard."There is no other country in the world I know of with that scheme in place. What is typical in other countries is that if they're paying any dues at all, they're paying more than non-members."Mortimer said that in the Council of Europe, which has 47 member countries (in excess of the 27 countries in the European Union), the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2007 that non-members dues can never be used for anything other than bargaining grievances and administering the collective agreement.The expert said much of Canadian union law derives from an arbitrator's decision to fix a massive strike of 19,000 Ford workers in Windsor in 1946. The union wanted every worker to become a member or be fired from their job, but the arbitrator only said he would make the workers pay union dues since they benefited from collective bargaining. The principles laid out, called the Rand formula, were subsequently adopted in labour laws across Canada.Mortimer said in New Zealand, if an employee joins a company where there is a union, they have the choice of becoming a union member, or paying a bargaining fee to gain from collective bargaining but not have their dues to go to political causes, or stay out of the union entirely and have a "direct working relationship with the employer" to "negotiate my own terms and conditions of employment with the employer.""In Australia, you can't be forced to be a union member to keep your job, and you can't be forced to pay union dues to keep your job if the workplace is unionized," Mortimer explained."Not even the Labour Party enforced union membership historically in Australia."The RAND formula was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991 by Francis (Merv) Lavigne. The Ontario community college teacher was involuntarily made a Member of the Ontario Public Services Employees Union (OPSEU) even though the collective agreement did not require him to become an OPSEU member as a condition of employment.Lavigne brought an application for declaratory relief against the union and argued the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, which gave the union the power to allocate funds to causes of their choosing, violated his charter rights of freedom of expression and association.The court unanimously held that the Charter applied in this case because obligation to pay dues could be attributed to government, but also refused to grant Lavigne the relief he requested.The LabourWatch website says the Levine decision is complicated to interpret."Some observers say that the majority decision held there was a violation of Lavigne’s freedom of association (section 2(d) of the Charter), that the Rand formula interferes with the freedom from compelled association, what is generally known in international human rights terms as the negative right of non-association. However, the majority ruled that such interference was justified under section 1 of the Charter. The majority decision held that the use of the union dues did not constitute forced expression, and so there was no violation of the freedom of expression," the site explained."Ultimately the Court upheld the union’s ability to collect full dues from non-Members of a union in a unionized workplace and the union’s ability to use dues for political and other purposes that the individual employee might be opposed to."In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada's Cutting and Coring decision addressed whether a Quebec law to force construction workers to join a union was constitutional. It was also complicated, as LabourWatch explains."The Supreme Court of Canada decided (8-1) that there is a negative right to not associate under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 2d), the Right to Freedom of Association. The Court also decided (5-4) that the Quebec legislation violated the right to not associate. However, the Court ultimately decided (5-4), under Section 1 of the Charter, that the Quebec legislation was a justifiable denial of that right in a free and democratic society given the history of labour relations in Quebec’s construction industry. The history the court summarized was that of union violence."Mortimer said the Quebec legislation was partly justified by the courts because it stopped violent confrontations. Because there is no such situation in Alberta, he believes if a UNA member wanted to challenge the use of dues to fight a pension plan, they would have a good chance."I believe that the use of union dues by the union of these Alberta workers is in contradiction to the Levine decision and the advanced Cutting and Coring decision. And I don't think you have a history of union violence in Alberta that can justify this action. It just needs to be contested."In a press release, UNA said it 'stands proudly' behind allocating funds to fight the proposed new pension plan."This was a decision of the Executive Board and UNA stands proudly behind its participation in the fight organized by the Alberta Federation of Labour to protect its members’ retirement security as one of the core functions of our union," the release said. "UNA believes strongly that it owes it to all current members, and all retired members including those who now live in other provinces, to fight hard to protect their retirement security, which is best ensured by participation in the Canada Pension Plan."In response to a query by the Western Standard, UNA Director of Labour Relations David Harrigan replied by email."Our Board members regularly consults with the membership. If you are asking if we [put] the issue to a specific plebiscite, the answer is no, we did not," he wrote.
