*B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M., Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario. 1Re Ford Motor Co. of Can. and the Int. Union U.A.A. & A.I.W. of Am. (U.A.W.C.I.O.) (1946), C.C.H. Lab. Law Transfer Binder (1949-54), ?18,001; 1 C.C.H. Lab. Law Rep., ?12150; 46 Lab. Gaz. 123. See H. J. Clawson, The Rand Formula: Subsidiary and Quasi-Legal Aspects (1946), 24 Can. Bar Rev. 879; and P. Cutler, Legality of the 'Rand Formula' and the Union Shop in the Province of (1957), 17 Rev. du Barr. 226. For a criticism of this formula, see Re U.P.W. of A., C.I.O., and Canada Packers Ltd. and Burns and Co. Ltd. (1947), 1 Lab. Arb. Cas. 57, at p. 59. 2Most Canadian legislation now permits some form of closed shop provision to be put in a collective agreement: Dominion Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 152, s. 6(1); Alberta Labour Act, R.S.A. 1955, c. 167, s. 80(2); British Columbia Labour Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 205, s. 8; Manitoba Labour Relations Act, R.S.M. 1954, c. 132, s. 6(2); New Brunswick Labour Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 124, s. 5(1); and Ontario Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 202, s. 35. In Saskatchewan, not only can you have union security provisions, but in certain circumstances a modified maintenance of membership clause must be inserted in the agreement: Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1953, c. 259, ss. 8(e), 27. In Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island union security provisions are possible; however, if a person is refused membership by the certified union the company may then hire him anyway: Newfoundland Labour Relations Act, R.S.N. 1952, c. 258, s. 5(1); and Prince Edward Island Industrial Relations Act, Stats. P.E.I. 1962, c. 18, s. 7. Only in Nova Scotia is there legislation prohibiting union security provisions: Trade Union Act, R.S.N.S. 1954, c. 295, s. 4(2) (b). Quebec is at present in the process of enacting legislation permitting union security: List, infra note 3. One area where protection is afforded against an excessive use of union security clauses in most of the above legislation is in relation to dual unionism. See Can., s. 6(2); Man., s. 6 (2); N.B., s. 5(2); Nfd., s. 5 (2); N.S., s. 6; Ont., s. 35(2) (3); and P.E.I., s. 6. This legislation, however, provides scant protection for the individual worker: see, e.g., Jurak v. Cunningham (No. 3) (1959), 21 D.L.R. (2d) 58 (B.C.S.C.). In most of the above legislation check-off clauses are validated: Alta., s. 101; B.C., s. 9; Nfd., s. 6; N.S., s. 67; Ont., s. 35(a); and Sask., s. 25. Although there is no legislation relating to check-offs in Quebec, such provisions in collective agreements have been held to be enforceable: Price Bros. v. Letarte, [19531 Que. Q.B. 307 (C.A.). 3See W. List, Globe & Mail (Toronto), July 5, 1963, p. b-3, where this point is discussed, together with newly proposed union security legislation in Quebec. 4See, e.g., Syndicate Catholique des Employds de Magasins de Quebec, Inc. v. Compagnie Paquet Ltee (1959), 18 D.L.R. (2d) 346 (Can. S.C.); rev'ng [1958] Que. Q.B. 275. For comments on this case, see R. Hurtubise, Note (1960), 39 Can. Bar Rev. 285; and P. Cutler, supra note 1. Cf. Ry. Employees' Dept., A.F.L. v. Hanson (1956), 351 U.S. 225.