Archived – Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles Chapter 8 - Section 7
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
One of the three exempting conditions provided for in the legislation dealing with labour disputes requires that the claimant not finance the dispute that is occurring at his or her place of employment Footnote 1 . The claimant's entitlement to benefit is not tied to the fact that there are other workers of the claimant's grade or class who are financing the dispute.
8.7.1 What does financing a dispute mean?
For a long time, this expression signified the general fact of providing financial assistance to one of the parties to the dispute, namely the employees, in order to help them set up and maintain a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute where they lost their employment. Such a designation meant that anyone who provided a monetary contribution to this financial support, whether voluntarily or not, directly or indirectly, was considered to be a person who was "financing a dispute" pursuant to the labour dispute provisions of the Act Footnote 2 .
That was before the Supreme Court's majority judgment in favour of a more restrictive interpretation of the word "finance". In their view, this would better serve the purpose of the Act as a whole, and prevent innocent victims of the dispute from having their benefits refused. Finally, it was argued that, it should be interpreted in a way that would be compatible with the values embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning the right of freedom of association Footnote 3 . The majority of the judges retained the concept that the word "financing" used in the labour dispute provisions of the Act implied an active connection between the payment and the dispute and a direct action on the part of the claimant to provide financial support to the workers involved in the dispute. Furthermore, according to the Court, the word "financing" requires active participation by the claimant, a free and voluntary contribution to this same aim.
The Court found that these elements were not present where the financial support provided to the workers in the dispute is issued from a fund established and administered by the international union; in that case, the person had no choice but to pay union dues, a portion of which was diverted to that fund, and had, strictly speaking, no voice in the decision of the international union to finance the dispute.
The Court emphasized some important principles regarding the union-employee relationship that exists nowadays in Canada. The point was stressed, that, today, unions are neither agent nor mandatory of the employee; upon this construction, a claimant who pays mandatory union dues could not be held to finance a strike through such dues.
To sum up, the word "financing" implies a meaningful connection: a direct action between the contribution and the labour dispute and requires a free and voluntary participation by the claimant to provide financial support to the dispute. These two characteristics are essential. One can then ask to what extent do these principles apply to other forms of financial support for employees who are party to the dispute, and how should we now proceed to identify those persons who are "financing the dispute" among those who are contributing to this support.
8.7.2 Who is financing a dispute?
When the Supreme Court rendered its landmark majority judgment Footnote 4 , it responded to the appeal Footnote 5 , and defined the approach that should be followed for all forms of financing that support employees who are a party to the labour dispute.
The identification of who is "financing a dispute" is no longer dependent on the sole fact of providing financial support to the employees involved in a dispute. Although this contribution is essential, it must not be concluded that whoever contributes, is "financing a dispute"; such a conclusion, at least, would be premature.
The name given to the financial support is not really important, whether it is called a strike indemnity, picket pay, lock-out pay, relief money or a loan of money; what is essential is that such assistance makes its way to the workers who are a party to the dispute. On the other hand, it would be pointless to linger over the case of a claimant who provided such a financial support, but whose place of employment would be distinct Footnote 6 .
It would hardly be possible to determine who contributed and in what manner, without tracing the financing back to its origin. Therefore, the narrow definition and the principles expressed by the Supreme Court will be applied to identify who among those are "financing the dispute".
8.7.3 Strike fund
The activities of a union are mainly financed from the union dues deducted from the work force that is part of the negotiation units that this union represents. These may be used to set up a general fund for various uses or to set up a specific fund designed to provide financial support to its members, for example, in case of labour disputes. Such funds may be established and managed strictly by the local union or, as is more frequently the case, by a central union of provincial, national or international scope which represents their common interests. The local unions are affiliated with the central union and remit a percentage of the union dues deducted from their own members in order to guarantee various services, such as professional defense and a relative protection of their income in case of disputes.
It would not be possible to pursue union objectives without these incoming funds and without insuring its continuance through union security by demanding certain prerogative measures such as mandatory payment of union dues, closed shop, union shop, preferred hiring or by a Rand formula. An employee is generally required to pay dues to the accredited union, or obliged to become a member of the union, or may be free to not become a member, or there may be a certain delay before an employee becomes a member.
What this means is, that a specific situation where the employees are obliged to pay union dues into a fund over which to all practical purposes they have no voice or control, is in line with the Supreme Court's conclusion Footnote 7 ; and it was decided that the two essential elements that characterize who is "financing a dispute" Footnote 8 were not present in such a situation.
This is not an exceptional situation since most strike funds are comprised of mandatory union dues consequently, in most cases, implicated by the labour dispute provisions of the Act will have no difficulty proving that they are not financing a dispute within the meaning of the exempting clause.
This applies regardless of the union level of the constitution and administration of a fund that will ultimately support the employees in the dispute. It is independent of the fact that the contributing employees are members of the negotiation unit that is a party to the dispute or that they are receiving strike indemnity from this fund.
A situation may be different from the one studied by the Court, either because the employees contributed voluntarily to the fund, or had a voice in the decision to use this fund to support the workers involved in the dispute. This would be the case when an employee voluntarily contributes, whether through regular dues or by a special fund-raising campaign, to a fund constituted and administered at some union level and having for a specific objective to help the workers involved in a dispute.
A second situation of this kind may be where the decision to provide financial support to these workers is made at a general or special meeting of union members of the negotiation unit to which an employee belongs. The democratic decision of the majority of the members to provide such a support will bind this employee, whether or not he or she agrees with this decision and even when there is no other choice than to contribute to the fund that is used for financing. It can be said generally that a person should accept not only the advantages but also any disadvantages that may result from his or her association with others.
In both of these situations there is an active and direct connection between the payment and the dispute, and a free and voluntary participation from the employee. These are the two essential characteristics of who is "financing a dispute".
A decision by union executive, to unilaterally provide financial support to the workers involved in a dispute from a fund made up from mandatory dues, does not bind the individual employees. This is true, even if theoretically they have a right to question this decision or can present a motion of disapproval. It cannot be said that this decision of the union executive means that the individual employee, who was obliged to contribute to the fund used for financing and did not as such have a significant right to decide in favour or against this support, is "financing a dispute".
While the majority of the members may vote in favour of financial support to the workers involved in a dispute, some persons may officially declare themselves to be against this position, or as non-unionized or probationary employees, did not have the democratic right to take a position on the question. Such arguments could lead to the conclusion that these persons are not "financing a dispute".
8.7.4 Other forms of financing
Union dues remitted to a consolidated strike fund established specifically for the defense of its members undoubtedly constitute the main source of financing for the payment of strike indemnities. Rarely, however, are such funds so large as to meet all needs, particularly if the strike is protracted, and some unions will resort to other means, call upon other resources or invoke union solidarity to obtain financial support for the workers involved in the dispute.
Another union organization or local working at the same place of employment but not involved in the dispute may show their solidarity to the workers involved in the dispute and provide financial support either in a lump sum or continuous manner. It will then be necessary to determine whether the two characteristics judged essential by the Supreme Court are present in this situation Footnote 9 . Such would be the case when it is specifically following the decision of the majority of the local union members that this financing support is provided Footnote 10 .
It may be that a local union will use its own funds to support a dispute, by financing certain activities or operations for the benefit of the strikers, for example by renting premises for their use, printing picket signs, or even advertising in the media. Such expenditures that do not go specifically to the workers involved in the dispute and that are usually authorized by the union executive should not be considered as being financed by each of the members.
In the case of essential services some employees who are required to continue to work despite the dispute will agree to remit part of their wages as a contribution to the cause of the strikers, which is also their own. By such a contribution direct and voluntary these employees "are without a doubt financing a dispute".
Certain members of a local union may also "be financing a dispute" on their own. When such persons freely and voluntarily contribute to the dispute by giving money to the group involved in the dispute, they are considered to be "financing a dispute".
8.7.5 Period of financing
Union constitutions usually provide for a waiting period at the beginning of a stoppage of work before benefits may be paid to strikers. Only after this period and if the stoppage of work still continues may payments be made from the strike funds. The scale of such payments varies depending on a person's marital status and the extent of involvement in strike activities in picketing.
Financing does not commence on the day the first payment is made but on the effective date from which strike benefit is payable Footnote 11 , and continues for as long as assistance is provided to the workers involved in the dispute. However, the fact that strike indemnities become payable does not necessary mean there is someone who "is financing the dispute" Footnote 12 .
In one case where financial assistance consisted of loans of money made by the local union, the period of financing was held to be that interval commencing with the first loan and ending with the last loan.
Should the labour dispute be financed through a lump sum payment rather than a weekly strike benefit, financing is considered to commence on the day the payment is made and is deemed to continue until the termination of the stoppage of work.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: