In his column “In defense of the rotten ones”, Patrick Lagacé served us last Sunday yet another strong outburst against unions and their duty of representation, as framed in Quebec legislation, going so far as to flay in passing, the integrity and civic sense of those whose job it is to represent their fellow human beings in their working relationships.
Recounting specific situations where employees who have committed serious misconduct have been “defended” by their union, the columnist questions the obligation incumbent on each union to diligently represent all of its members. A responsibility imposed by the legislator, which Mr. Lagacé assimilates to an uncompromising crusade that would lead each association of workers grappling with a problematic member, who has committed serious acts or who is simply in the wrong.
Thus, the offices of union representatives would be full of files of harassers who poison the workplaces, thieves who take public property for their own, disconnected anti-tax devices that delay the group, and the deep motivation of the average unionist, when he is rises in the morning, would be to make the cause of such people triumph, with the greatest contempt for the victims and the public interest.
Industrial peace
Let us first recall that the obligation of representation imposed on unions by article 47.2 of the Labor Code is one of the components of a balance of power that exists in labor relations and ensures a certain industrial peace in the workplace. Quebec. Thus, in a workplace, the decision to join a union or not is taken collectively, by majority.
In a favorable vote, all the employees concerned are then deemed to join the union and must pay the membership fee, even those who were personally against it. This is the Rand formula.
In return, the union thus recognized has the obligation to defend all its members … even those whom it would do without.
Is it a perfect system? Probably not. But most trade unionists will very rarely have to deal with this kind of problematic file. And they will hate to do it. No union colleague that I know these days wants to defend an antivax which claims the right to infect colleagues, customers and users with impunity in the workplace.
Faced with this unprecedented situation, many of us are hoping for a first court decision which will clarify the legality of a compulsory vaccination in the workplace and which will then allow us to say to our few rare antivax members: “Sorry, we can file a grievance if you want, but it won’t get very far. Your chances of victory are close to zero, we advise you not to get into this battle. ”
Because yes, recommending to a member not to move forward when his cause is lost in advance, that respects our obligation of representation.
But as I said, this kind of case is rather rare in our work. Mr. Lagacé already knows this. He’s a smart man, I’m not teaching him anything.
But it’s probably more entertaining to talk about a harassing janitor than about the work unions do with their thousands of other members. Make sure that the 47e hour of work is paid as overtime. Add the long COVID to the A-38 form as an illness eligible for salary insurance. Help a mother to obtain the leave for family responsibilities to which she is entitled. To save the employment link of an employee whose life is turned upside down by a tragedy.
It’s probably less entertaining, indeed.
1. Read “In Defense of the Rotten” What do you think? Express your opinion