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)
AlbertaCharter of Rights and FreedomsEmployment RegulationSupreme Court of CanadaUnions and Collective BargainingWomen and Work

Alberta’s Bill 32 Is a Seismic Break in Labour and Employment Law

by Jason Foster July 10, 2020
written by Jason Foster July 10, 2020

Written by Professor Jason Foster, Athabasca University

Last week the United Conservative Party government of Jason Kenney introduced Bill 32, named the Restoring Balance in Alberta’s Workplaces Act, a massive omnibus bill that amends six different labour and employment relations acts. The Bill, despite its anodyne title, marks a seismic break in labour and employment law in Alberta.

This may seem like an overstatement, given that Alberta has long had the lowest employment standards and harshest labour relations environment in Canada, save for the brief Notley inter-regnum. However, even during the previous Progressive Conservative regime, Alberta’s law of work regimes remained within the broad Canadian consensus, albeit on the lower end. Bill 32 signals a shift in strategy. As Professor David Doorey mentioned in his post about the bill, Bill 32 is inspired by an American approach to labour and employment relations. It is the latest installment of the UCP government’s shift to a low-road economic strategy which aims to build competitiveness through low corporate taxes, low wages, poor working conditions, weak environmental standards and impatience with democratic dissent.

The bill has dozens of changes, but I will highlight three buckets that I believe reveal this new strategy most clearly.

First, there are the Punish Unions amendments. These sections aggressively target unions and union activities. The bill requires unions to receive each individual member’s consent to collect the portion of dues not related to core representational activities. This runs counter to Lavigne (1991) and is a punishment for the labour movement’s active campaign during and after the 2019 election. The bill also severely restricts picketing by prohibiting picketers from “obstructing or impeding” anyone attempting to cross a picket line and requiring unions to seek permission from the labour relations board before conducting any secondary picketing. These amendments, again, run counter to recent jurisprudence promoting picketing as a fundamental component of freedom of expression under the Charter, and appear to be designed to render picketing ineffective at inflicting economic pain on the employer, a central purpose of strikes.

Second, there are the Insidious Damage amendments. These sections target technical and legalistic aspects of the labour relations system and are designed to quietly provide an advantage to employers, in particular employers seeking to avoid unionization. The bill eliminates timelines for certification votes; the requirement of a vote within five working days has been replaced with a provision calling for a vote “as soon as possible”. It allows the avoidance of an open period through early renegotiation of an agreement. This amendment will largely benefit the Christian Labour Association of Canada, an organization that anti-union employers prefer to deal. The bill removes automatic certification as a potential penalty for an unfair labour practice. Other sections restrict the scope of decision-making for arbitrators and make it easier for the labour board to overturn arbitration decisions. Some of these amendments undo changes made by the NDP while others chart new territory, but all take labour relations in the direction of benefiting the employer and making it harder to organize a union and defend a collective agreement.

Third, there are the Take Advantage of Vulnerable Workers amendments. There are a number of changes to the Employment Standards Code (ESC) that make it easier for employers to side-step core employment standards. The bill enhances employer flexibility through “averaging agreements”, which permit the averaging of working hours for overtime pay purposes. Most significantly it removes the requirement that an employee consent to an averaging agreement and allows the employer to unilaterally impose one. It also increases the number of weeks that can be averaged from 12 to 52, effectively ensuring impacted employees never receive overtime pay.

The bill streamlines and expands the scope of “variances”. Variances are permissions to violate the ESC for specific workers or work situations. They are intended to be rare and aimed at addressing unique situations. Bill 32 makes it easier to get industry-wide variances, expands the scope of Ministerial authority over variances, and eliminates the requirement that the Director ensure that a variance “meets the criteria established by the regulations”. It also allows such variances to be renewed indefinitely. The unmistakable message is that going forward variances will be seen as an active tool in creating “flexibility” for employers. 

Bill 32 also makes it easier to lay-off workers by reducing notification requirements, increases the time period where no severance is required, and excludes seasonal and contract workers from notification requirements. These particular changes may seem minor, but when the law makes it easier for employers to lay off workers, the lay-off “threat” is enhanced, thus further shifting power to employers.

Taken together the three buckets represent a dramatic shift in the Alberta government’s approach to labour and employment law. It can also be seen in the government’s defence of the bill, which has been unapologetically pro-employer. If passed, Bill 32 will have material impacts on hundreds of thousands of workers. Unionized workers will see their union advantage erode, workers wishing to be unionized will find the road more difficult, and the most vulnerable workers will be increasingly at the mercy of their employer. 

Jason Foster, “Alberta’s Bill 32 Is a Seismic Break in Labour and Employment Law” Canadian Law of Work Forum (July 10 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=12862

Bill32
0 comment
8
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Jason Foster

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

previous post
Child Labour in B.C.: Our Inadequate Enforcement Mechanisms
next post
Uber v Heller and the Prospects for a Transnational Judicial Dialogue on the Gig Economy

You may also like

Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure...

February 24, 2021

The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in...

February 19, 2021

Real Pleadings: Has Uber Created a New Service...

February 15, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Prof. Doorey’s Updated Beginners’ Guide to the Charter...

February 1, 2021

Calling the Shots: Is Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination a...

January 29, 2021

What is a Minority Union?

January 4, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

David Doorey on Jacobin: “Collective Bargaining Needs a...

December 16, 2020

Arbitrator: Employees Must Get Swabbed for COVID

December 16, 2020

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·
36m

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·
2h

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.