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

Bogg & Ewing on the Fraser Decision and Canada's Peculiar Take on Freedom of Association

by David Doorey March 5, 2012
written by David Doorey March 5, 2012

I’m back from a week of travels, and have a backlog of interesting issues and cases to deal with on the blog this week.
I begin with a fascinating new article on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ontario v. Fraser by two of Britain’s foremost labour law scholars, Professor  Alan Bogg (Oxford) and Keith Ewing (Kings College, University of London).  The article is forthcoming in the Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal.  This version is an almost final proof kindly sent to me by Alan.
Here is the paper in pdf format.
The article provides one of the clearest and thorough summaries of the Fraser decision to date, including a careful comparison of the Court’s contradictory  analyses both within the majority reasons in Fraser, and in comparison with the majority reasons in B.C. Health Services.
The authors are highly critical of Canadian scholars who engaged in an “extraordinary attack” on B.C. Health Services, which they believe was one of the most positive decisions for w0rkers’ rights in decades:

In its most recent decision in Fraser, however, the Canadian court appears to have beaten a retreat, responding in part it seems to the remarkable interventions of law professors critical of BC Health Services, in what was perhaps one of the most extraordinary attacks on one of the most positive decisions on workers’ rights in any common law jurisdiction for at least a generation.

Thus, the article is not only critical of the arguments made by Canadian academics against B.C. Health Services, but also of the motivation or utility of attacking judges who dared to take a positive step towards recognizing that Canada should indeed pay attention to international norms and standards regarding freedom of association.  They fear that Canadian judges are now losing confidence in this approach, and a retreat from it will only certainly not benefit workers.  Thus, they raise questions about the role of progressive legal scholars in critiquing worker-friendly decisions.
Most of the paper is a fascinating critique of what the authors call the “thin” interpretation of freedom of association that has been advanced most forcefully by Professor Brian Langille of the University of Toronto.  They fear that this interpretation is gaining momentum in Canada, as demonstrated most clearly in the strong dissent by Justice Rothstein in Fraser, who they claim adopted Langille’s analysis almost completely.  The authors deconstruct Langille’s interpretation of freedom of association, which Bogg and Ewing assert reflects a misunderstanding of the principals upon which Langille claims to rely.
They assert that Langille’s “narrow” interpretation of freedom of association is just one of many possible interpretations of Freedom of Association, and there is nothing particularly compelling about the approach as compared to other “thicker” interpretations that add more substance to associational rights.  Moreover, they assert that Langille’s claims about the difference between “rights” and “freedoms” is wrong and involves a misunderstanding of the work of Wesley Hohfeld, upon which Langille draws inspiration.
In the end, they call for a thicker approach to freedom of association that is tied to recognized international principles that include a right to collective bargaining and strike.  Failure to do so creates a great risk that freedom of association could devolve into nothing more than a right to hold a union membershup card:

Langille and Rothstein J have argued for delinking by the SCC of Canada’s constitutional commitment to freedom of association from its obligations under international law to respect freedom of association. We believe that this position is ill-advised and that any attempt to set the constitutional standard below the international standard to be strongly deprecated. Let us imagine a legal universe where Freedom of Association, as protected by the Canadian Charter, floats perilously free in its application to labour relations from its corresponding elaborative standards as specified in ILO Convention 87 and the associated Committee jurisprudence. The risk involved in such a delinking is that there would be everything to play for in filling up content-less principles with whichever interpretive theory seems to suit a particular interlocutor. Perhaps we are seeing the effect of this asserted evacuation of normative content at the international level in recent work in labour law theory. If adopted in other jurisdictions, this approach risks dragging down standards at national level (as is obvious in Fraser), with the possible risk that standards will be dragged down at international level as well, as international agencies contemplate what is possible rather than desirable. It is not outlandish again to suggest that the core of freedom of association as a fundamental right is simply the right to hold a union card…. This underscores the need to ensure that fundamental labour rights are fully connected with their elaborative jurisprudence and supporting legal norms, especially in the ILO context.

This paper will attract a lot of attention in the labour law community, and will probably provoke a thoughtful response from Professor Langille.  Must reading for anyone interested in the ongoing “freedom of association” debates.

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
7th Annual Labor & Employment Law Colloquium: Chicago, Sept. 2012
next post
Saskatchewan Appeals Ruling Finding Charter Protects Right to Strike

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 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

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 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

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 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

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
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.