Look out Taxpayer. Another costly legal challenge we will have to pay.

Hydro forces unionization: suit

Winnipeg Sun wrote:Manitoba Hydro is preventing employees from working on large-scale
projects such as Bipole III if they don’t want to join a trade union, a
new lawsuit claims.

Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, which represents
approximately 4,600 workers and more than 200 companies, filed the suit
in the Court of Queen’s Bench on Wednesday.

“As a condition of receiving work, Hydro’s transmission line
collective agreement requires all employees to join a union and pay
union dues,” said Harvey Miller, the association’s executive director,
in a prepared statement. “We believe this violates fundamental Charter
rights guaranteed to workers, including the rights to freedom of
expression and association.”

Its is about damn time someone did a charter challenge. Section 15 swings both ways.

My charter rights are being infringed upon. I don't want to be in a union and I don't want to pay union dues. Time to evoke the notwithstanding clause or amend the charter and give the people the right to not be associated with out fear of reprisal by the unions or employer.

That's what I think.

I'll expand on my above statement.

Being forced to join a union in order to secure employment in Canada is breaching my following Rights as set out by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
2(d) freedom of association.
6(2)(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
15(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


Section 15(1) tells me that I am supposed to be treated equal before the law, yet I am not allowed to be employed with out joining an association (union). I am free to associate, and I wish to associate with the company which hires me. Yet I am not allowed to. Companies that bid on Crown contracts must be unionized and/or pay union dues. I must pay union dues (extortion) in order to secure a livelihood. I call shenanigans.

Its time invoke Section 24(1) and get my remedy.
24(1)Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

As far as I'm concerned, I am being discriminated against because of my non-association with Unions. If I were a lawyer looking to make a name for myself I would file a class action lawsuit. Or I can just join in with the one that has been launched against Manitoba Hydro.

Am I wrong?
I seriously feel discriminated against.
Please let me know how you feel about this subject. I wont attack you for your beliefs or view.

Totally agree. Unions will argue that without collective bargaining rights they lose their hammer over the employer.

It would be an interesting experiment to see how existing companies with large unions would fare if members could opt out.

There would be enormous pressure on the opting out employees from the union hard-liners.

One unionized employer I would like to see a charter challenge (sec 15.1) used on would be the Government of Canada.

I'd be willing to bet the Province of Manitoba would use the "not withstanding" clause.

grumpy old man wrote:Totally agree. Unions will argue that without collective bargaining rights they lose their hammer over the employer.

It would be an interesting experiment to see how existing companies with large unions would fare if members could opt out.

There would be enormous pressure on the opting out employees from the union hard-liners.

I think there would be violence...lots of it.

Deank wrote:
I think there would be violence...lots of it.

I wonder why hard line unionists would resort to violence.

Anyhow, if I were an employer and 5% of my striking workers used intimidation and violence they would be fired for breaching the violence & harassment policy of my company.

There is no need to behave like uncivilized savages in this day and age.

What LD said. But Deank is right. The hardliners have difficulty with opposition.

employer/employee relationship are typically ... you outshine everyone and you get rewarded, you perform below everyone and you get sh1t on.

Enter a union... and both of those disappear and everyone is treated equally.

Most work places there are far more average or below average people then above average...

Once you realize that, you can see why violence happens.

LivingDead wrote:

Deank wrote:
I think there would be violence...lots of it.

I wonder why hard line unionists would resort to violence.

Anyhow, if I were an employer and 5% of my striking workers used intimidation and violence they would be fired for breaching the violence & harassment policy of my company.

How do you prove who did the violence and harassment??
Since it is likey they would do the dirty deeds under the cover of darkness.

well.. they eventually proved which union supporters killed the replacement workers in that mine up north a decade or two back.