Affiliation:
1. Assistant Professor,Osgoode Hall Law School,
Abstract
Widespread adoption of mandatory representation votes and express protection of employer speech invite employer anti-union campaigns during union organizing, including employer-held captive audience meetings. Therefore, the problem of whether and how to restrict employers’ captive audience communications during union organizing is of renewed relevance in Canada. Captive meetings are a long-standing feature of American labour relations. This article considers how treatment of captive meetings evolved in the U.S., including the notion of employee choice; the “marketplace of ideas” view of expression dominating the American debate; and the central role of the contest between constitutional and statutory rights. It also considers the concept of “forced listening” and the associated Captive Audience doctrine in U.S. constitutional law and considers its possible application to captive audience meetings and the Charter definition of free expression. Finally, it offers suggestions about how Canadian labour law can benefit from lessons learned from the American experience.
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Strategy and Management
Reference87 articles.
1. Andrias, Kate E. 2003. “A Robust Public Debate: Realizing Free Speech in Workplace Representation Elections.” The Yale Law Journal, 112 (8), 2415–2463.
2. Becker, Craig. 1993. “Democracy in the Workplace: Union Representation Elections and Federal Labor Law.” Minnesota Law Review, 77, 495–603.
3. Bentham, Karen. 2002. “Employer Resistance to Union Certification.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 57 (1), 159–187.
4. British Columbia. 2002a. Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 3rd Session, 37th Parliament.
5. British Columbia. 2002b. Discussion Paper: A Review of Labour Relations in British Columbia.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献