Abstracts
Summary
This study investigates the prevalence and impacts of employer resistance to union certification applications in eight Canadian jurisdictions. Employer resistance was found to be the norm, with 80 percent of employers overtly and actively opposing union certification applications. Analysis demonstrated that, depending on its form, employer opposition to union certification can impact upon both initial certification outcomes and on the probability the parties will establish and sustain a collective bargaining relationship. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that focusing only on the probability of certification success seriously underestimates the impact of employer opposition.
Résumé
Cet article s’appuie sur des données canadiennes pour tenter de combler la pénurie d’études empiriques sur l’ampleur de la résistance des employeurs face aux demandes d’accréditation syndicale. Il en évalue les conséquences non seulement sur l’accréditation initiale mais aussi suite à l’obtention du certificat d’accréditation. Il est important au Canada de jeter un coup d’oeil au-delà des taux de succès de l’accréditation et d’évaluer l’impact de la résistance d’un employeur sur la capacité des employés de se syndiquer, mais aussi d’enclencher et de maintenir avec succès des rapports de négociation collective. On croit que les systèmes canadiens d’accélération de l’accréditation, plus particulièrement ceux qui reposent sur la signature de cartes syndicales par une majorité, ont tendance à protéger le support de la majorité nécessaire à des fins d’accréditation contre les effets d’une opposition de la part d’un employeur. Cependant, dans le cas des systèmes à cartes, l’effet de l’opposition d’un employeur, même subtile, sur la solidarité et sur le support actuels ou sur leur érosion éventuelle peut faire tourner le succès d’une campagne de syndicalisation en une victoire à la Pyrrhus.
Les résultats de cette étude s’appuient sur une enquête effectuée auprès de 420 employeurs dans huit juridictions canadiennes où un certificat d’accréditation a été accordé par une commission de relations du travail appropriée entre 1991 et 1993 inclusivement. On a utilisé une technique statistique de régression pour apprécier les relations entre onze mesures des réactions des employeurs aux demandes d’accréditation et quatre mesures dichotomiques des conséquences : (1) le résultat initial d’une demande d’accréditation ; (2) la conclusion ou non d’une première convention collective ; (3) le fait ou non que des difficultés de négociation sont apparues tel qu’indiqué ou non par le recours à l’assistance d’une tierce partie, incluant la médiation, la conciliation ou l’arbitrage de la première convention ; (4) le fait que le syndicat a perdu ou non son accréditation à l’intérieur des deux premières périodes ouvertes de maraudage. On a fait appel à deux modèles d’évaluation : un qui utilise des variables fictives dans le cas d’un syndicat impliqué dans un processus d’accréditation; un deuxième qui utilise des variables propres à l’industrie. Cet échantillon montre que l’opposition à l’accréditation est la norme. Les réactions des employeurs sont variées; cependant, 88 % d’entre eux ont posé des gestes visant à rendre difficile l’accès du syndicat aux employés; 68 % ont entretenu des communications directes avec leurs employés pour s’opposer à l’accréditation; 29 % ont resserré les règlements d’atelier ou ils ont surveillé les employés; enfin, 12 % ont admis avoir eu recours à des pratiques déloyales au cours de la campagne de syndicalisation. Même en présence d’une liste extrêmement conservatrice de gestes que peuvent poser les employeurs sans être taxés d’opposition, les réponses qu’ont fourni 80 % d’entre eux dans l’échantillon pouvaient être sans se tromper de l’ordre d’une résistance de leur part. De plus, 20 % des employeurs ont été accusés ou ont admis avoir utilisé au moins une pratique syndicale déloyale.
L’analyse a démontré que, dépendamment de sa forme, l’opposition de l’employeur à la reconnaissance du syndicat peut avoir des conséquences sur une première accréditation et sur la probabilité que les parties réussissent à établir et à maintenir des rapports de négociation. Quelques gestes, par exemple la formation des dirigeants en vue d’affronter une campagne d’organisation syndicale, ont eu des effets désastreux sur la probabilité de succès d’une accréditation. Cependant, les comportements des employeurs pendant la campagne de syndicalisation ont produit leurs effets les plus dramatiques après l’accréditation. On en percevait les effets sur la conclusion de la convention collective et sur le maintien du certificat d’accréditation après les deux premières périodes de maraudage.
Cette étude ajoute du poids à ceux qui rejettent l’hypothèse voulant que des employeurs complaisants, qu’une législation protectrice et que des procédures d’accréditation accélérée protègent les syndicats canadiens des effets délétères de l’opposition des employeurs. Elle va plus loin que les recherches antérieures en démontrant que l’attention sur le résultat d’une première accréditation sous-estime largement l’impact de la résistance des employeurs, plus spécifiquement dans les systèmes d’accréditation accélérée. Pour être plus clair, le fait d’obtenir une ordonnance d’accréditation ne constitue qu’un pas vers les avantages et la protection de la syndicalisation. Quoique les systèmes accélérés vont probablement offrir une protection contre l’opposition d’un employeur qui interfère avec l’ordonnance initiale d’accréditation, leur protection est sérieusement minée si les gestes d’un employeur au cours de la campagne empêchent la conclusion d’une première convention collective ou contribuent à la désaccréditation hâtive du syndicat.
Resumen
Este estudio investiga la prevalencia y los impactos de la resistencia de los empleadores a las demandas de certificación sindical en ocho jurisdicciones canadienses. La resistencia de los empleadores aparece como la norma, con 80% de empleadores que se declaran abierta y activamente opuestos a las demandas de certificación sindical. El análisis demostró que, dependiendo de sus formas, la oposición de los empleadores a la certificación sindical puede tener impacto sobre el resultado inicial de certificación y sobre la probabilidad que las partes establezcan y mantengan una relación de negociación colectiva. De otro lado, el estudio demuestra que enfocar solamente la probabilidad de obtener la certificación lleva a subestimar gravemente el impacto de la oposición del empleador.
Appendices
References
-
Ahlburg, Dennis A. and James B. Dworkin. 1984. “The Influence of Macroeconomic Variables on the Probability of Union Decertification.” Journal of Labor Research, Vol. V, No. 1, 13–28.10.1007/BF02685067 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Akyeampong, Ernest B. 1997. “A Statistical Portrait of the Trade Union Movement.” Perspectives, Winter, Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 75–001-XPE.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1980.tb00158.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Anderson, John, Charles A. O’Reilly III and Gloria Busman. 1980. “Union Decertification in the U.S.: 1947–1977.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 19, No. 1, 100–107.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1980.tb00158.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Anderson, John, Gloria Busman and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1982. “The Decertification Process: Evidence from California.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 21, No. 2, 178–195.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1982.tb00227.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Bronfenbrenner, Kate. 1994. “Employer Behavior in Certification Elections and First-Contract Campaigns: Implications for Labor Law Reform.” Restoring the Promise of American Labor Law. S. Friedman et al., eds. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press, 75–89.10.2307/2523019 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Bronfenbrenner, Kate. 1996. “Final Report: The Effects of Plant Closing or Threat of Plant Closing on the Right of Workers to Organize.” Report submitted to the Labor Secretariat of the North American Commission for Labor Cooperation.10.2307/2523827 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Bronfenbrenner, Kate. 1997. “The Role of Union Strategies in NLRB Certification Elections.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 50, No. 2, 195–212.10.2307/2525082 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Bronfenbrenner, Kate. 2000. “Uneasy Terrain: The Impact of Capital Mobility on Workers, Wages, and Union Organizing.” Submitted to the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission, September 6, 2000.10.2307/2522930 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Bronfenbrenner, Kate and Tom Juravich. 1994. The Impact of Employer Opposition on Union Certification Win Rates: A Private/Public Sector Comparison. Economic Policy Institute. Working Paper 113.10.1086/294951 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Bronfenbrenner, Kate and Tom Juravich. 1998. “It Takes More than House Calls: Organizing to Win with a Comprehensive Union-Building Strategy.” Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies. K. Bronfenbrenner et al., eds. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press, 19–36.10.1007/BF02685180 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Bruce, Peter G. 1994. “On the Status of Workers’ Rights to Organize in the United States and Canada.” Restoring the Promise of American Labor Law. S. Friedman et al., eds. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press, 273–282.10.2307/2524126 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Cooke, William N. 1983. “Determinants of the Outcomes of Union Certification Elections.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, 402–414.10.2307/2523019 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Cooke, William N. 1985a. “The Rising Toll of Discrimination against Union Activists.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 24, No. 3, 421–442.10.2307/2523903 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Cooke, William N. 1985b. “The Failure to Negotiate First Contracts: Determinants and Policy Implications.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, 163–178.10.2307/2523827 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Delaney, John Thomas. 1981. “Union Success in Hospital Representation Elections.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 20, No. 2, 149–161.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1981.tb00190.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Dickens, William T. 1983. “The Effect of Company Campaigns on Certification Elections: Law and Reality Once Again.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 36, No. 4, 560–575.10.2307/2522930 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Drotning, John. 1967. “NLRB Remedies for Election Misconduct: An Analysis of Election Outcomes and their Determinants.” Journal of Business, Vol. 40, No. 2, 137–148.10.1086/294951 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Elliott, Ralph D. and Benjamin M. Hawkins. 1982. “Do Union Organizing Activities Affect Decertification?” Journal of Labor Research, Vol. III, No. 2, 153–161.10.1007/BF02685180 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Forrest, Anne. 1989. “Effect of Unfair Labour Practice Complaints on Certification and Collective Bargaining.” Industrial Relations Issues for the 1990’s: Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the Canadian Industrial Relations Association. Laval University, Quebec: ACRI/CIRA, 423–431.10.1007/BF02685725 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Freeman, Richard B. and Morris Kleiner. 1990. “Employer Behavior in the Face of Union Organizing Drives.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, 351–365.10.2307/2524126 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Getman, Julius G., Stephen B. Goldberg and Jeanne B. Herman. 1976. Union Representation Elections: Law and Reality. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.10.2307/2523214 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Hunt, Janet C. and Rudolph A. White. 1985. “The Effects of Management Practices on Union Election Returns.” Journal of Labor Research, Vol. VI, No. 4, 389–403.10.1007/BF02685494 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Hurd, Richard W. and Adrienne McElwain. 1988. “Organizing Clerical Workers: Determinants of Success.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, 360–373.10.2307/2523903 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Koeller, C. Timothy. 1992. “Employer Unfair Labor Practices and Union Organizing Activity: A Simultaneous Equation Model.” Journal of Labor Research, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 173–187.10.1007/BF02685476 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Lawler, John. 1982. “Labor-Management Consultants in Union Organizing Campaigns: Do They Make a Difference?” Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Winter Meeting, December 28–30, 1981, Washington, D.C. Madison, Wisc.: Industrial Relations Research Association, 274–280.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1983.tb00251.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Lawler, John and Greg Hundley. 1983. “Determinants of Certification and Decertification Activity.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 22, No. 3, 335–348.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1983.tb00939.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Lawler, John. 1984. “The Influence of Management Consultants on the Outcome of Union Certification Elections.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, 38–51.10.2307/2523798 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Lawler, John and Robin West. 1985. “Impact of Union Avoidance Strategy in Representation Elections.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 24, No. 3, 406–442.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1985.tb01040.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Lawler, John. 1990. Unionization and Deunionization. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Macdonald, Alastair Peter. 1987. First Contract Arbitration in Canada. Kingston, Ontario: Industrial Relations Centre, Queen’s University. School of Industrial Relations, Research Essay Series No. 17.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Maranto, Cheryl L. and Jack Fiorito. 1987. “The Effect of Union Characteristics on the Outcome of NLRB Certification Elections.” Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, 225–238.10.2307/2523288 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Meyer, David and Trevor Bain. 1994. “Union Decertification Election Outcomes: Bargaining Unit Characteristics and Union Resources.” Journal of Labor Research, Vol. XV, No. 2, 117–136.10.1007/BF02685725 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Pavy, Gordon R. 1994. “Winning NLRB Elections and Establishing Collective Bargaining Relationships.” Restoring the Promise of American Labor Law. S. Friedman et al., eds. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press, 110–121.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Peterson, Richard B., Thomas W. Lee and Barbara Finnegan. 1992. “Strategies and Tactics in Union Organizing Campaigns.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 31, No. 2, 370–381.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1992.tb00315.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Prosten, Richard. 1979. “The Longest Season: Union Organizing in the Last Decade.” Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting, August 29–31, 1978, Chicago. Madison, Wisc.: Industrial Relations Research Association, 240–249.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Reed, Thomas F. 1989. “Do Union Organizers Matter? Individual Differences, Campaign Practices, and Representation Election Outcomes.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, 103–119.10.2307/2523214 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Reed, Thomas F. 1993. “Securing a Union Contract: Impact of the Union Organizer.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 32, No. 2, 188–203.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1993.tb01026.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Riddell, Chris. 2001. “Union Suppression and Certification Success.” Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 34, No. 2, 396–410.10.1111/0008-4085.00080 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Roomkin, Myron and Hervey A. Juris. 1979. “Unions in the Traditional Sectors: The Middle Life Passage of the Labor Movement.” Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting, August 28–31, 1978, Chicago. Madison, Wisc.: Industrial Relations Research Association, 212–222.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Roomkin, Myron and Richard N. Block. 1981. “Case Processing Time and the Outcome of Representation Elections: Some Empirical Evidence.” University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 75–97.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Rose, Joseph B. 1972. “What Factors Influence Union Representation Elections?” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 95, No. 10, 49–51.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Sandver, Marcus H. 1980. “Predictors of Outcomes in NLRB Certification Elections.” Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting, April 10–12, 1980, Cincinnati, Ohio. Midwest Academy of Management, 174–181.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Saporta, Ishak and Bryan Lincoln. 1995. “Managers’ and Workers’ Attitudes Toward Unions in the U.S. and Canada.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 50, No. 3, 550–565.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Scott, Clyde, Jim Simpson and Sharon Oswald. 1993. “An Empirical Analysis of Union Election Outcomes in the Electrical Utility Industry.” Journal of Labor Research, Vol. XIV, No. 3, 355–365.10.1007/BF02685690 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Seeber, Ronald L. and William N. Cooke. 1983. “The Decline in Union Success in NLRB Representation Elections.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 22, No. 1, 34–44.10.1111/j.1468-232X.1983.tb00251.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Sexton, Jean. 1987. “First Contract Arbitration in Canada.” Labor Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 8, 508–518.
10.7202/051034ar Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Solomon, Norman A. 1985. “The Negotiation of First Collective Agreements under the Canada Labour Code: An Empirical Study.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 40, No. 2, 458–470.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
StatisticsCanada. 1980. Standard Industrial Classification 1980. Catalogue No. 12–501–E. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.
10.7202/050155ar Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Statistics Canada, Household Surveys Division. 1995. Labour Force Annual Averages 1989–1994. Catalogue No. 71–529. Ottawa: Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Statistics Canada, Industrial Organization and Financial Division, Labour Unions Section. 1990–1994. Annual Report: Part II – Labour Unions. Catalogue No. 71–202. Ottawa: Minister of Industry, Science and Technology under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Thomason, Terry. 1994a. “The Effect of Accelerated Certification Procedures on Union Organizing Success in Ontario.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 47, No. 2, 207–226.10.2307/2524417 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Thomason, Terry. 1994b. “Managerial Opposition to Union Certification in Quebec and Ontario.” Unpublished. Faculty of Management, McGill University.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Thomason, Terry and Silvanna Pozzebon. 1998. “Managerial Opposition to Union Certification in Quebec and Ontario.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 53, No. 4, 750–771.
10.7202/005305ar Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
