The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Can a government legislatively freeze its employees' wages?

by David Doorey August 28, 2012
written by David Doorey August 28, 2012

UPDATE:  Here is a video from the Agenda of two labour lawyers discussing Bill 115 and the Charter implication.
A lot of attention is on the teacher’s situation in Ontario right now, and the highly unusual and very complicated Bill 115 introduced yesterday by the Ontario Liberals. That Bill does a lot of things, one of which is freeze teacher wages for a couple of years and fix other terms, thereby rendering collective bargaining over those issues futile.  The law firms and blogs will no doubt be absorbing and analyzing the Bill in the days and weeks to come.  Look for yet another Charter challenge coming down the pipes.
I was interviewed by CBC Radio earlier, and they were interested in the Premier’s comments that an across the board public

Premier McGuinty Says Across the Board Public Sector Wage Freeze Unconstitutional


sector raise freeze of the sort the Conservative Party is proposing would violate the Charter, but the wage freeze imposed on the teachers in Bill 115 does not. For new labour law students just entering class, let’s think about that for a moment.
B.C. Health Services (2007)
The story begins in 2007 with B.C. Health Services,  a case in which the B.C. government did something similar to what the Ontario Liberals are doing now:  pass a law that fixes conditions of employment and bans bargaining about important issues in the future.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the B.C. government had violated Section 2(d) of the Charter (granting everyone the freedom to associate).  Since Section 2(d) guarantees workers a right to engage in meaningful collective bargaining in good faith with their employer, a law that effectively prohibits bargaining over key issues amounts to substantial interference with the Constitutional right to collective bargaining.  The SCC said this in B.C. Health:

B.C. Health Services: Laws or state actions that prevent or deny meaningful discussion and consultation about working conditions between employees and their employer may substantially interfere with the activity of collective bargaining, as may laws that unilaterally nullify significant negotiated terms in existing collective agreements.

This case seems to say that governments could not legislatively freeze raises of unionized workers.   That view seemed to be confirmed by the SCC in the 2011 decision in Ontario v Fraser (at para. 37).
Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Summer 2012)
Now flash forward to earlier this summer.  The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Ass’n of Justice Counsel v. Canada (AG). That case challenged federal legislation (the Expenditure Restraint Act) that set a cap on raises for government lawyers.  An arbitrator later imposed those capped percentages, and the lawyers’ union challenged the legislation as a violation of Section 2(d).  They lost at the OCA.  How?
The OCA said that Section 2(d) protects only a process of collective bargaining, and not any particular outcome and not a right to strike.  In this case, unlike in the B.C. Health Services situation, the union and the employer had engaged in extensive bargaining over wages prior to the wage-fixing legislation being enacted.   Some 16 bargaining sessions had taken place, and another 5 days of mediation with one of Canada’s top mediators.  After all this bargaining, the parties had reached an impasse.
According to the OCA, once the workers have had a fair chance to present their collective representations to the employer, and the employer has received those representations and responded to them in good faith, ‘freedom of association’ has been satisfied.   Employers are not required to bargain indefinitely into the future.  At some point, the Constitutional duty to bargain expires, and here it had done so.  The Court summarized its finding as follows:

Ontario Court of Appeal: Further negotiation may be possible after the constitutionally protected phase of the process of bargaining has concluded but that possibility, a remote one on the facts of this case, does not expand the scope of the protected right. Fraser makes clear that s. 2(d) has limits: it does not guarantee any dispute resolution process after the parties have reached an impasse and it does not guarantee any particular outcome. In my view, the validity of the ERA must be assessed on the basis of whether, at the time it was enacted, the parties had had the opportunity for a meaningful process of collective bargaining. If they had, s. 2(d) is satisfied. The faint hope of further negotiations in the shadow of a dispute resolution mechanism not protected by s. 2(d) cannot expand or extend the reach of s. 2(d) beyond its core guarantee.

This decision appears to provide a road-map for governments on how to impose wage freezes or wage fixing legislation, or  any other collective agreement term, without running afoul of the Charter, does it not?
It seems to find that, as long as a government employer sits and listens to public sector unions’ bargaining proposals, nodding along and offering the odd comment here and there, it can then eventually walk away from the table and legislate whatever contract terms it wants.
UPDATE:  The SCC refused leave in this case.  So, watch for every anti-union government in Canada to begin a process of going through the motions of bargaining with public sector unions, followed by a declaration that they are unable to reach a deal, followed by legal imposition of a collective agreement on whatever term the government wants.   And, possible, say goodbye to meaningful collective bargaining in the public sector.  Is the private sector next?
[Back to the original post] If that position is affirmed by the SCC on appeal, then whatever benefit the labour movement thought it had achieved in B.C. Health Services will have been swiftly swept away.  But it is far from clear what the SCC will do with Association of Justice Counsel decision.  It will be decided in the context of other cases moving up the judicial ladder that raise the keystone issue of the right to strike or to access a neutral dispute resolution process.  At the end of the day, the most important question is what options are available to workers when bargaining reaches an impasse.  Note that even in normal collective bargaining under regular labour relations law in Canada, such as the Ontario Labour Relations Act, an employer can engage in ‘hard bargaining’, where the employer meets, discusses proposals, but refuses to offer the unionized employees anything.  That’s lawful in Canada, but normally the solution to hard bargaining is a strike.  In the case of the teachers, the government has removed that option so that it can just impose whatever it likes.  That’s why the real issue that will determine whether Section 2(d) of the Charter actually provides any real benefit to workers will depend on whether freedom of association includes a right to strike or to access to a neutral third party arbitration process when bargaining reaches an impasse.  The Liberals (and the Conservatives) don’t think the teachers should have access to any of those options.  If the Charter permits governments to simply impose whatever terms they want, and to ban strikes and lockouts and prohibit access to neutral and fair arbitration processes when bargaining reaches an impasses, then we are right back to where we began–freedom of association as an empty vessel.

Would that be a good result in your opinion?  Or should ‘freedom of association’ include a right to have bargaining disputes determined by a system of neutral arbitration or a right to strike?
Given this background, can you see why Premier McGuinty is arguing that a legislated wage freeze as applied to teachers is not a violation of the Charter, but that a general across the board wage freeze imposed on all public sector workers would be a violation?
Do you agree with his position?

12 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Are Law School Tuition Fees in Canada Still a Bargain?
next post
Rubin v. Home Depot: When Is a Release Signed by Employee Unenforceable?

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 331 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
12h

This is basically every riding I’ve lived in as an adult, in Toronto and Vancouver.

Reply on Twitter 1529295970458017793Retweet on Twitter 1529295970458017793Like on Twitter 15292959704580177931Twitter 1529295970458017793
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
13h

Good article. Only small beef is characterization that @Uber was lobbying against its drivers being ‘reclassified as employees’

Suggests that they aren’t already employees of Uber under Ontario ESA.

ryan white@ryandwhite12

An authoritative article on just how the Ford government is enabling Uber's exploitative model and undermining workers' rights. Great to be quoted alongside workers, @veenadubal, @PalimpsestJenn, @JMandryk and others. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-uber-gets-almost-everything-it-wants-in-doug-fords-working-for-workers/

Reply on Twitter 1529282870698819585Retweet on Twitter 1529282870698819585Like on Twitter 15292828706988195853Twitter 1529282870698819585
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
19h

Five stores. Now that’s interesting.

Brad James@jamesbrad263

Starbucks employees in Lethbridge: a five store application for bargaining rights with @SteelworkersCA
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220524006034/en/Lethbridge-Starbucks-Workers-File-Application-to-Join-Steelworkers-Union?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Reply on Twitter 1529185893633908738Retweet on Twitter 15291858936339087381Like on Twitter 15291858936339087386Twitter 1529185893633908738
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.