Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Air Canada and CUPE agree to an arbitrated solution. What Now for Law Reform?

by David Doorey October 21, 2011
written by David Doorey October 21, 2011

In a surprise development yesterday, Air Canada and the union representing its flight attendants agreed to refer their bargaining dispute to interest arbitration.
The Arrangement
Details of the deal are sketchy, but this story explains the basic points. It seems the parties met with the Chair of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, Elizabeth MacPherson.  That meeting led to an agreement with several ingedients that have been made public:

1.    The parties will try to agree on an arbitrator, failing which the CIRB will appoint one.
2.    An interest arbitration hearing will commence on October 28th, and an arbitration award must be issued by November 7th.  How’s that for fast.  I assume the idea is that the arbitrator will issue a sort of bottom line decision, perhaps with reasons to follow, but I don’t know the details.
3.   Bad faith bargaining complaints filed by both parties will be withdrawn.

 
Section 79 of the Canada Labour Code says that an agreement by the parties to refer a bargaining dispute to arbitration suspends the right to strike or lockout.
I haven’t heard yet, and the media stories don’t tell us, if a format for the arbitration was agreed to, such as “final offer selection“, which was the process that Air Canada agreed to use with the C.A.W. earlier this year.  Rumour is that final offer selection was not chosen by the parties.  The more common procedure for interest arbitration permits both parties to make submissions to the arbitrator about what the collective agreement should include, and the arbitrator is free to craft an agreement that makes the most sense, applying the usual rules and tests that interest arbitrators use.
Both sides have an incentive to avoid the government’s back to work legislation.  The government’s preferred model includes final offer selection and  a peculiar direction to arbitrators to value the employer’s competitive concerns over the employees’ economic interests.  Air Canada recently tasted defeat in the final offer selection process when an arbitrator selected the C.A.W.’s proposal over Air Canada’s proposal, which included an attempt to introduce a completely new type of pension plan for new hirers.   So Air Canada might have a bad taste in its mouth about final offer selection.   CUPE may have preferred a deal in order to avoid this government’s slanted form of interest arbitration.  So it would not surprise me if the deal includes no final offer selection, and no specific criteria imposed on the arbitrator to decide.
What Happens to the Minister’s “References” and Her Threats to “Reform” the Canada Labour Code
This agreement likely means that the Minister of Labour’s controversial “references” will be withdrawn, since they are moot now.  It also avoids the battle in Parliament that would have ensued had the Tories introduced their back to work legislation, and the inevitable Charter challenge that would have been filed against the legislation.
Will it prevent the government from moving ahead with its cryptic threat to amend the Canada Labour Code in light of the bargaining disputes at Air Canada and Canada Post?
Who knows, but somehow I doubt it.   Watch for reforms while the Tories have their majority that will empower or direct the labour board, or empower the Minister to restrict a work stoppage when the stoppage poses a threat to the economy (however the government defines that), similar to the powers already available at present to restrict work stoppages when they could cause a threat to health and safety.  In other words, we may be moving towards a model in which economic factors will be treated as “essential” in the same sense that threats to health and safety have been traditionally.
We have already gone down this road in Ontario.  The only justification given by the Ontario government for declaring the TTC an essential service was the adverse impact on the Toronto economy. [Remember the $50 million per day myth]  It is not a leap at all to believe that the Tories will add “economic concerns” to our legislative understanding of “essential services” in order to make it easier for the government to restrict strikes.  This would prevent the Minister from ever again having to lie so blatantly to the public in order to pretend a stoppage would harm public safety just to use the “essential services” part of the Code to prevent a strike.
What do you think?  Should the Feds add “economic concerns” to the essential services criteria, like this:

87.4 (1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public or serious harm to the Canadian economy.

Do you perceive any problem with a reform like that?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Promoting Two Great Causes, Two Great Toronto Events Coming Up
next post
I Told You: Tories Are Considering Adding Harm to "Economy" to Definition of Essential Services

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
1h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923167Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
3h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
19 Feb

Tenants have associations, but landlords can't just ignore them. Is Landlord Tenant Law the next frontier in Freedom of Association litigation?

@TheLawofWork considers:

“The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in Landlord and Tenant Law”

https://lawofwork.ca/the-striking-absence-of-freedom-of-association-in-landlord-and-tenant-law/

Reply on Twitter 1362821027458334724Retweet on Twitter 13628210274583347243Like on Twitter 13628210274583347244Twitter 1362821027458334724
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.