MP Alexandre Leduc, from Québec solidaire (QS), tried Thursday to convince the Minister of Labor, Jean Boulet, to modify the Labor Code so that unions are no longer obliged to defend employees sanctioned for sexual violence.
“If we want to send a very clear signal in the workplace to stop acts of sexual harassment at the source, why not [dire] that it’s not true that no matter what you do, your union will defend you? » launched MP Leduc.
Himself a former union advisor, he recounted having experienced a situation in which an employee had sent explicit photos to colleagues. “You want to force a union to defend this person? » he asked Minister Boulet during the study of Bill 42.
Mr. Leduc tabled an amendment which modified the scope of article 47.2 of the Labor Code. This article governs the duty of representation of unions. It stipulates in particular that a union “shall not act in bad faith or in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner” towards employees.
The following article provides that an employee can file a complaint if he considers that his union has failed in this duty, in the context where he has suffered “dismissal or disciplinary action”. In the opinion of QS, this article should be modified in cases where the sanction resulted from violence of a sexual nature. In short: an employee sanctioned for sexual violence could no longer blame his union for having poorly defended him. “Why, in the specific case of sexual violence, should we not partially lift this obligation of representation? » asked Mr. Leduc.
An intellectual openness
Last week, Minister Boulet declared to the Duty that he was “open” to a revision of the Labor Code so that unions were no longer “obligated to defend everyone,” as Mr. Leduc had said. On Thursday, he clarified that his opening was intellectual, but that it came up against reality, notably constitutional.
“This would create a truly distinct regime for non-union members. The non-unionized could go to the CNESST, for administrative review and to court. That, for me, is a deep issue and I am sure that we would have that broken,” he pleaded. He referred to “constitutional issues”, and said he had difficulty “denying” an employee “the right to make a complaint”.
Mr. Boulet subsequently recommended that unions have policies to “clearly describe how [ils] must behave in front of perpetrators of sexual violence or psychological harassment.” Article 47.2 is interpreted by certain unions as “a duty, regardless of the circumstances”, he stressed. However, this interpretation is false in his opinion.
Although he said he understood “the feeling that inhabits” Mr. Leduc, Mr. Boulet rejected his proposed amendment, with the support of the Liberal Party of Quebec. “I’m a little disappointed,” reacted the supportive MP. I found that it was another way of cracking down on workplace aggressors, of sending the message that it’s not true that you’re going to be defended anytime, anywhere. »