Author: Tenechia Williams
Date: 23 May 2025
Introduction
Unionized employment is a key component of Canada’s labor market, designed to protect workers through collective bargaining agreements that secure wages, benefits, and job security. While unions play a vital role in negotiating the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, the structure of unionized employment can sometimes limit the role lawyers play in providing legal support to unionized employees.
Despite these concerns, unionized workplaces do offer advantages such as compensation benefits, job security, pension, and medical plans. To provide a balanced perspective, this article explores the pros and cons of unionized employment in Canada, as well as highlighting the enhanced roles and responsibilities of unions in navigating the complexities in the legal landscape.
The Benefits of Unionized Employment
One of the primary benefits of unionized workplaces is job security, as collective agreements were aimed at protecting employees from arbitrary dismissal. Workers also benefit from higher wages and improved benefits, often negotiated through collective bargaining.
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling in Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association v. Ontario (Attorney General) (2024 ONCA 101) is a prime example of the power of union representation. The court struck down Bill 124, which had restricted public sector wage increases to 1%, deeming it unconstitutional.
Arbitrator William Kaplan later awarded a 2.75% compensation increase to Ontario teachers, reinforcing the importance of collective bargaining in securing fair wages.
Unions also ensure strong workplace protections, advocating for safer conditions and equitable treatment. In Diver v. Simcoe Muskoka Family Connections (2018 HRTO 189), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled that unionized employees could pursue discrimination claims independently, affirming their right to workplace equality beyond the grievance process dictated by collective agreements. The cases demonstrate the importance of the unions’ role in ensuring fair treatment and access to essential benefits such as healthcare, pensions, and paid leave.
Collective Bargaining Power and Workplace Advocacy
Another critical role of unions is ensuring that employees’ concerns and workplace issues are adequately addressed. This includes fair negotiations with the goal of securing beneficial and stable employment agreements. Beyond securing wages, union advocacy extends to workplace safety, diversity initiatives, and policy improvements that shape equitable working conditions.
One example of union intervention in workplace protections is the case of Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) v. Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.
In this case, OPSEU filed multiple grievances against the employer, alleging workplace harassment and discrimination. The grievances highlighted the union’s role in advocating for employees facing unfair treatment, ensuring that workplace policies are properly aligned with legal and ethical standards.
Through collective negotiations, unions like OPSEU push for stronger protections against workplace misconduct, reinforcing the importance of fair treatment and accountability.
Additionally, unions contribute to workplace safety improvements through initiatives such as Joint Health and Safety Committees (JHSC). These committees, mandated by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, require union representatives to collaborate with employers in identifying hazards, conducting inspections, and recommending safety measures.
By ensuring compliance with health and safety regulations, unions help to create safer working environments for employees across various industries.
Unions also play a vital role in advancing diversity and inclusion within workplaces. York University’s Global Labour Research Centre published a report titled Advancing Equity and Racial Justice in Canadian Workplaces and Labour Unions.
The report highlights how Canadian labor unions, including those in Ontario, have taken proactive steps to address workplace racism and improve diversity through collective bargaining, grievance processes, and workplace education.
These efforts demonstrate the unions’ commitment to fostering equitable workplaces where employees of all backgrounds receive fair treatment and opportunities for advancement.
Through these mechanisms, unions continue to shape workplace policies that prioritize employee well-being, ensuring that concerns related to safety, discrimination, and fair treatment are addressed effectively.
While the Collective Bargaining process empowers unions to advocate on behalf of unionized employees, there are still hurdles and legal complexities within collective bargaining agreements. These complexities can sometimes blur the boundaries of where employees should seek justice.
Based on the collective bargaining agreements, if a unionized employee encounters work-related or discriminatory issues, the unions commence an action on behalf of the employee by filing a grievance.
If the matter remains unresolved through the grievance process, it then proceeds to Arbitration. In some circumstances, if an employee is dissatisfied with the grievance process, they may proceed to file a complaint in the Human Rights Tribunal.
The case of London District Catholic School Board v. Weilgosh (2024) is a prime example of this challenge. By upholding concurrent jurisdiction, the ruling affirmed that unionized employees are not confined solely to labor arbitration but can also pursue discrimination claims through Human Rights Tribunals.
While concurrent jurisdiction is possible for unionized employees, navigating this dual legal process can be difficult, requiring employees to maneuver between arbitration procedures dictated by their collective agreement and the broader protections offered by human rights legislation.
The decision in Weilgosh reinforces the need for greater clarity in workplace dispute resolution, ensuring that unionized employees fully understand their rights and the avenues available for legal recourse. It also highlights the evolving role of unions in addressing not just wage and employment conditions but also critical issues like workplace discrimination and fair treatment.
Challenges in Unionized Workplaces
Despite the benefits of unionized employment, some concerns have been raised regarding mandatory union dues. Employees must pay union dues even if they do not actively participate in union activities.
While these funds support labor negotiations and union operations, it is questionable whether the costs are justified, particularly when requests are made by employees for unions to pay legal fees to seek independent legal advice.
Under the Rand Formula, established in Ford Motor Co. of Canada v. UAW (1946), set the precedent that all employees in a unionized workplace must pay dues, regardless of their membership status.
While this ruling ensured financial stability for unions, it has been criticized for limiting individual choice, as employees are required to contribute even if they disagree with union policies or leadership decisions.
Further, slow grievance resolution remains a significant challenge in unionized workplaces, often undermining employees’ ability to seek timely justice. The arbitration process, while designed to provide a structured approach to resolving workplace disputes, can be diminished by procedural delays, backlogged cases, and protracted union-employer negotiations.
These inefficiencies create uncertainty and frustration for workers who rely on the grievance mechanism to address urgent concerns such as wrongful termination, discrimination, and workplace misconduct.
These concerns were highlighted in the case of United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local No. 401 v. Sofina Foods Inc., where a dismissed employee faced a 26-month delay before an arbitrator was appointed.
The employer then challenged the continuation of arbitration, invoking the equitable doctrine of laches, which prevents claims from proceeding after excessive delays.
The Alberta Labour Relations Board upheld the arbitrator’s decision to dismiss the grievance, reinforcing the principle that unreasonable delays can compromise the fairness and effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms.
While the roles of the union and the bargaining process were intended to balance workplace equality, stability ,and benefits for employees, balancing advocacy and the complexity in the legal landscape is required to ensure workers’ rights and employment are not undermined.
Legal Framework and Compensation Disputes
Canada’s legal framework establishes regulations for fair labor practices, ensuring that collective agreements are upheld while protecting workers’ rights. However, breaches of collective bargaining agreements can lead to significant compensation awards, reinforcing the importance of strong union representation in securing fair remuneration.
A prime example is the case of Crown in Right of Ontario v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation & Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (2024 CanLII 8967), which demonstrated the financial impact of wage suppression on unionized employees.
Following the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling that Bill 124 violated constitutional labor rights, Arbitrator William Kaplan awarded retroactive wage adjustments to affected teachers. This decision highlighted the legal consequences of government-imposed wage restrictions, affirming the role of unions in advocating for fair earnings.
Similarly, the Phoenix Pay System Class-Action Settlement (2025) addressed widespread payroll errors affecting federal employees, leading to notable financial compensation. On April 15, 2025, the Superior Court of Quebec approved the Bouchard class action settlement agreement. Eligible class members have until October 24, 2025, to submit a claim for damages caused by the Phoenix pay system.
Under the terms of the Phoenix pay system settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on their eligibility for each fiscal year. Class members can receive a maximum of $350 for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, up to $175 for the 2017-2018 fiscal year, a maximum of $175 for the 2018-2019 fiscal year, and up to $175 for the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
The settlement also emphasized the necessity of maintaining accurate and transparent wage structures in unionized workplaces. This case highlighted the critical role unions play in ensuring employees receive proper remuneration when payroll systems fail.
The above cases highlight the power and value of unions in safeguarding employee interests while holding employers accountable for contractual obligations.
Conclusion
Unionized employment remains a cornerstone of Canada’s labor market, offering significant protections, fair wages, and advocacy for workers. However, the intersection of collective bargaining agreements and individual rights continues to present challenges, particularly in navigating grievance procedures, arbitration limitations, and concurrent legal jurisdictions.
A proactive approach to these challenges will strengthen Canada’s labor framework, ensuring that unionized employees are adequately protected and work-related issues are addressed timely.