Question

Q1) How does Monetary and Fiscal policy affects Labor relations?
Q2) Explain the process of certification and decertification of employees?
Q3) What is the purpose of successor rights?

4) tort of harassment (200 words)

Answer 1

1. Monetary and Fiscal policy that affects Labor relations:

By supporting aggregate demand, including by easing financial constraints that affect businesses and house­holds, accommodative monetary policy increased employment during the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath. But, monetary policies that ease financial pressures also reduce necessary restructuring that normally contributes to productivity growth. One reason why productivity growth has been weaker in the aftermath of the crisis is that aggressive monetary policy actions have weakened underlying supply-side performance and labor productivity. Fiscal policy refers to the use of government spending and tax policies to influence economic conditions, especially macroeconomic conditions, including aggregate demand for goods and services, employment, inflation, and economic growth. Fiscal policy refers to the use of government spending and tax policies to influence economic conditions.

Fiscal policy is largely based on ideas from John Maynard Keynes, who argued governments could stabilize the business cycle and regulate economic output.

During a recession, the government may employ expansionary fiscal policy by lowering tax rates to increase aggregate demand and fuel economic growth.

In the face of mounting inflation and other expansionary symptoms, a government may pursue contractionary fiscal policy.

Advantages:

Policy loosening by central banks initially raises demand for labor by reducing the effect of financial constraints on employment through lower interest expenses.

A severe fall in labor demand and reductions in employment can weaken an economy’s supply-side performance through increased long-term unemployment and loss of potentially productive businesses; such effects reinforce the benefits of accommodative monetary policy during a downturn, at least initial

Disadvantages:

Budget constraints necessitate the reallocation of resources to more productive uses; highly accommodative monetary policies that reduce financial pressures may mitigate this effect and thus weaken the underlying supply side of the economy.

Monetary policy easing may reduce the positive effects of resource allocation to a greater degree in economies whose financial systems are bank-based as opposed to market-based.

Monetary policy actions supported economic activity, labor demand, and employment during the 2008 global financial crisis, partly by avoiding the “hysteresis effects” (which raised the unemployment rate persistently) after past European recessions. However, if financial constraints continue to be reduced well into a recovery, this may impede productivity growth, job creation, and ultimately the strength of the recovery. While monetary policy loosening is an essential policy response to a downturn, timely removal of such policy, alongside other policies that raise productivity growth, is necessary for the medium-term strength of the recovery.

2. Process of Certification and Decertification of Employees:

The certification process formalizes the collective bargaining relationship. Once a union is certified for a group of employees, the union becomes their exclusive bargaining agent. Unless the bargaining unit is later decertified, the employer is required to bargain in good faith to reach a collective agreement.

Certification

The certification of a union as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees marks a fundamental change in the employer-employee relationship. As a unionized employer you are no longer at liberty to negotiate individually with your employees concerning the terms and conditions of employment. These terms and conditions will be enshrined in a collective agreement, which operates as a binding contract between the employer and the union, on behalf of the employees.

Effect of Certification

Once the union is certified, either you or the union can serve notice to begin collective bargaining. Within 10 days of the notice, “good faith” bargaining must begin. Good faith bargaining means that both sides enter into genuine negotiations with the other side and make a sincere effort to reach a collective agreement.

Furthermore, for at least 12 months or until a collective agreement is reached (whichever is sooner), you are prohibited from changing wages or terms or conditions of employment, without written permission from the LRB.

Decertification:

The LRB may cancel a certification, at any time, in circumstances where the board becomes satisfied that:

• the trade union has ceased to be a trade union;
• the employer has ceased to be an employer;
• the union has abandoned its bargaining rights; or
• employees in the bargaining unit demonstrate sufficient support for decertification.

In this last case, the employees must submit to the board an application for decertification. Such applications cannot be filed until at least 12 months after the date of certification. This restriction provides the new union with a fair opportunity to demonstrate its ability to represent the bargaining unit.

Where at least 45 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit sign forms in support of decertification, a secret-ballot vote will be held within five business days of the application. For the decertification application to be successful, the majority of votes cast must be in favour of decertification. Like an application for certification, if fewer than 55 per cent of the eligible employees cast ballots in a decertification vote, the board may require another vote.

the decertification process can lead to a variety of complex disputes, so it is generally a good idea to seek legal advice if you find yourself in the middle of a decertification campaign.

3. Successor rights :

Successor rights are labour code provisions which allow a bargaining agent to continue to represent employees in a bargaining unit and also allow for the continuation of collective agreements (until the term expires) when a cohesive business or function is sold, transferred or otherwise divested.

4. Tort of Harassment

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized harassment as a tenable cause of action, and a free-standing tort in Ontario. Before this decision, harassment was only actionable in the context of a breach of the Human Rights Code, constructive dismissal, bad faith during termination, or reprisal under a specific statute.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”). He alleged that, after participating in a Barrie nomination meeting for the Progressive Conservative Party in 2005 to challenge the incumbent as a form of protest, his superiors made unjustified and unwarranted decisions about him based on allegations that had no merit. Among others, the RCMP falsely accused him of engaging in criminal conduct, launched a baseless investigation against him, damaged his reputation, and impeded his career advancement, all of which caused him to fall into a deep bout of depression.

The Plaintiff claimed damages for harassment, among other heads of damages, but did not allege a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code. His claim was against the defendants for committing the common law tort of harassment.

After analyzing past case law, the Court determined that the tort of harassment does exist and has been recognized as a cause of action in Ontario. The Court listed the appropriate test to substantiate a claim of harassment:

1. Was the conduct of the employer outrageous? The perceived harassment must be “grossly offensive,” and assessed on an objective basis.

2. Did the employer intend to cause emotional stress, or did it have a reckless disregard for doing so? This step does not require the conduct to be intentional, but it must rise above the level of simple negligence.

3. Did the employee suffer from severe or extreme emotional distress? The employee must prove that they suffered distress that “no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure.”

4. Was the outrageous conduct of the employer the actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress? The employee must prove that the harassment caused the distress. Pre-existing medical conditions, for example, will weaken the employee’s case.

Applying the test to the case at hand, the Court concluded that “the defendants’ conduct toward the plaintiff was outrageous. The defendants had a reckless disregard of causing the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. His emotional distress was severe. The defendants’ outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s emotional distress. The plaintiff has proven the tort of harassment.”

Thus, the Court found that the Plaintiff had proven the tort of harassment and awarded the Plaintiff $140,000 in general and special damages.

Although there has been a long-standing civil tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering, this new tort of harassment highlights the seriousness with which the courts will deal with harassment issues in the workplace. It is important to have updated harassment policies and training provided to all employees. Most importantly, there should be a system in place to deal with the intake and investigation of harassment complaints.

While this is a welcome decision for employers, taking all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, including sexual harassment, in the workplace is critical for employers. These steps include providing anti-harassment training, having appropriate workplace policies and investigating any incident or complaint of harassment, all of which may be required by applicable occupational health and safety legislation. Harassment also may constitute a breach of applicable human rights legislation when it is linked to a prohibited ground of discrimination. In addition, if there is retaliation against an alleged victim of harassment, there may be punitive damages.