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

Fraser v. Ontario: Constitutional Right to Collective Bargaining Survives, Just Barely

by David Doorey April 29, 2011
written by David Doorey April 29, 2011

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fraser v. Ontario was released this morning. Here it is.  I’ve only skimmed it since I was at a conference all morning, and now need to pump out a paper form my conference in Florence later this month (I know, whoa is me).
So while I would usually do a full breakdown of the decision, I won’t be able to right now. Instead, I will link to some other summaries of the decision already flowing out.  I note that the news headlines are saying “no right to unionize for farm workers”.  That’s not what the decision says, as I read it.  They have a right to unionize, as do all workers.  The Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which was upheld in the decision, gives them a right to unionize without retaliation from the employers.  The issue was whether they have a right to engage in collective bargaining and if so, what that means.
As it typical of this Court on Section 2(d) [freedom of association] matters, the Court is divide and the reasoning is often difficult to follow.  There are four different sets of reasons because the judges can’t see to agree on much in a nice lean decision with 369 paragraphs. O, brother.
The main majority decision is written by Chief Justice McLachlin and LeBel J. with three other judges agreeing with their reasons (Binnie, Fish, Cromwell).    They rule essentially that Section 2(d) does protect a limited right to collective bargaining, as found in B.C. Health Services.  It is a limited right for workers to come together and make collective representations to their employers, and to have their employer listen to their representations and discuss them in “good faith”.  Then the employer can say “go to hell”. That’s some serious right.  Insofar as laws substantially interfere with the employees’ ability to exercise that limited right, they run afoul of Section 2(d).   The majority ruled that the Agricultural Employees Protection Act does not violate Section 2(d), applying this test, and that Chief Justice Winkler of the Court of Appeal, a former employer-side labour lawyer, was wrong in ruling that Section 2(d) protects a right to majority representation, exclusive union representation, a duty to bargain in good faith, and some form of dispute resolution method.
Once again, Justice Abella, the judge probably most knowledgeable in labour law, dissents.  However, this time she is alone.  Justice LeBel, who is also a labour lawyer and who has sided with Abella before in efforts to expand the scope of freedom of association, sided with the majority.  Abella would have ruled that the AEPA violates Section 2(d) because it fails to protect a practical right of agricultural workers to engage in collective bargaining.
The other two judges, Rothstein and Charron, would have overruled B.C. Health Services altogether and found Section 2(d) does not protect a right to collective bargaining.  They rely heavily on critical writings by my academic colleagues, especially Brian Langille (U. of T.) and Eric Tucker (York), who criticized the analysis in B.C. Health Services for improperly interpreting labour history and international labour law.
So here are some same day commentaries from around the Internet.  I’ll add more later.  I will also post any comments sent to my blog about this case, so if you have a view on the decision, please send it along.
SLAW’s coverage
Globe and Mail story {Note that the headline “Agricultural Workers Have No Right to Unionize is not accurate. They do have a right to unionize, they just don’t have a right to insist on formal collective bargaining backed by some form of dispute resolution process]
The United Food and Commercial Workers take on the decision.

1 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
Newsflash: SCC to Release Fraser v. Ontario Today!
next post
Canada Votes on Monday: Employee Entitlements, and the Rise of the Mice?

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.