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

Fraser v. Ontario: Court Finds Ontario Violated Charter Right to Collective Bargaining

by David Doorey November 19, 2008
written by David Doorey November 19, 2008

Years after being voted out of power, the Mike Harris/Ernie Eaves Conservative Government’s attacks on labour rights continue to be chastised by the Courts.   This time, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled the Tories’ Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002  (AEPA) violates the Section 2(d) right of agricultural workers (AW) to engage in collective bargaining with their employers.  The long-awaited decision in Fraser v. Ontario (A-G) was released this week.  Back in July, I posted the pleadings filed in this case.
The AEPA was the Tory government’s response to the the SCC decision in Dunmore v. Ontario, in which the Court struck down the exclusion of agricultural workers from the Labour Relations Act.   I have briefly described the circumstances leading up to this new decision before, and it is set out nicely by Justice Winkler at the outset of the Fraser decision. 
Writing for a unanimous Court, Winkler (who was a prominent employer-side labour lawyer before joining the Bench) found that the AEPA violated the AW’s right to collective bargaining, and that the violation was not saved by Section 1.  That right to collective bargaining was recognized by the SCC last year in the landmark Health Services decision.  The employer in Fraser was a large mushroom operation employing nearly 300 employees, a significant majority (70%) of whom had joined the UFCW.  However, the employer had refused the UFCW’s offer to bargain collectively.   The employer could do this because there was no obligation on employer’s to bargain with unions in the AEPA.  As it turned out, the ability of the employer to refuse to bargain with a union that had the overwhelming support of the employees became strong evidence in the case that the AEPA (and its exclusion of AW from the LRA) ‘substantially interferes’ the right of the AW to collective bargaining. 
In light of Health Services, the outcome in Fraser is not particularly surprising.   Winkler J. applied the tests set out by the SCC in the recent decision of Baier v. Alberta, where the Court considered the circumstances in which exclusion from a particular statutory model could amount to a violation of Section 2 of the Charter.  Winkler ruled that the AW’s claim is that they are being denied their Constitutional right to enage in meaningful collective bargaining, it was not that they are simply being denied access the the particular model of labour relations created in the LRA.
He then ruled that AEPA ‘substantially interferes’ with the AW’s right to collective bargaining.  He accepted essentially the same evidence as the SCC in Dunmore, which demostrated that absent access to statutory machinery, including the legal duty to bargain, AWs have never been able to engage in effective collective bargaining in Canada:  “Without a statutory duty to bargain in good faith, there can be no meaningful collective bargaining process (p. 81)”.  Winkler noted also that the protection of collective bargaining in the Charter must “also provide a mechanism for rsolving bargaining disputes” (82).   He is careful not to equate this with a right to strike, but he clearly does believe that Section 2(d) includes a right to some form of dispute resolution process, such as interest arbitration, for example.  That is an important ruling.
Another interesting part of the decision is Winkler’s discussion of the ‘exclusivity’ model in Canadian labour law.  That is the idea that a union’s right to bargain on behalf of employees be linked to its ability to gather the support of a majority of the workers.   The AEPA did not give any particular preference to the majoritism principle.  While acknowledging the government’s point that this model is not common outside North America, he ruled that it is intricately tied to Canadian labour relations, going as far as to note that ‘majoritarian exclusivity is essential to ensure’ the balance of power between workers and employers.  That is a debatable conclusion.   It also appears to read into Section 2(d) a particular model of labour relations–the Wagner Act model–even though the SCC was clear in Health Services and Dunmore that Section 2(d) does not protect any particular type of labour relations model. 
In finding that the violation of Section 2(d) was not saved by Section 1, Winkler J. noted that there are less intrusive ways to ‘protect the family farm’ that an outright effective ban on all AW from engaging in collective bargaining.  He suggested, for example, that legislation might exclude farms with fewer than some specified number of employees.  Given that the Court gave the government one year to figure out how to bring the law into accordance with the decision, is it now possible we are looking at legislation that excludes ‘small farms’ but not larger industrial operations? 
I have always been suspicious of the collective-bargaining-is-not-conducive-to-the-family-farm argument.  It assumes that a family-owned workplace can only operate efficiently if the employees are subserviant to the employer’s wishes and lack any power to resist the employer’s demands.  This seems to me to be a highly dubious assertion.   But we shall have to wait and see what will be the next Chapter in this ongoing sage.

4 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
Is it discriminatory to dismiss an alcoholic for stealing alcohol?
next post
COACH: Another Human Rights Violator

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

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

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

Off to Vancouver folks. Please be sunny.

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @TheLawofWork

Speaking of middle aged guys who talk about Labour Law, I’m returning to my old stopping grounds in beautiful Vancouver later this month!

Thanks to @AllardLaw & @SFU_LBST for the invitation.

Hope to see you there, or join on-line:

https://www.sfu.ca/labour/community/news-events/news-2023/mapping-the-future-of-canadian-labour-law-lecture-by-dr--david-d.html

Reply on Twitter 1638176313533157377 Retweet on Twitter 1638176313533157377 Like on Twitter 1638176313533157377 4 Twitter 1638176313533157377
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
15h

Pitching @Uber as a ‘green’ company is some next level shit.

Uber Canada @Uber_Canada

UberX Share provides a greener way to get from A to B, by moving more people with fewer cars. Now available in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.

Reply on Twitter 1637978201598185472 Retweet on Twitter 1637978201598185472 7 Like on Twitter 1637978201598185472 34 Twitter 1637978201598185472
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
17h

For me, this simple little case brings into focus the most important issues for future of Canadian labour law.

What does it mean to say workers have freedom to associate when they can be fired for associating?

Should law protect nonunion workers’ right to strike? How so? …

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @TheLawofWork

Was reading a decision again in which a group of daycare workers selected a spokesperson to raise employment related concerns with boss.

She was fired.

Workers struck in solidarity. They too were fired.

Did you know that no Canadian law protects these workers from dismissal?

Reply on Twitter 1637939578446258179 Retweet on Twitter 1637939578446258179 4 Like on Twitter 1637939578446258179 39 Twitter 1637939578446258179
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
  • Newfoundland
  • 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.