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

Guest Blog: Barnacle on Saskatchewan's Labour Law Reforms and the Legal Challenges Against Them

by David Doorey September 3, 2008
written by David Doorey September 3, 2008

I noted in a previous entry that reforms were underway in Saskatchewan as the Saskatchewan Party followed in the footsteps of Mike Harris’s Conservative government in Ontario and Gordon Campbell’s Liberal Party in B.C. in seeking to attract investment by weakening labour laws and the strength of unions. In this illuminating Guest Blog, union-side labour lawyer Peter Barnacle of Woloshyn & Co. in Saskatoon explains the reforms and describes how the labour movement is responding through legal action.
One of the issues involves the sudden, mid-term dismissal of Vice-Chairs of the labour board that the new government believed were not sympathetic to its anti-union perspective. This was a tactic used by the Ontario Conservative government in the 1990s too, and was found to be illegal under Ontario law. The government also introduced some extremely restrictive “essential services” legislation and other labour law reforms designed to undermine union organizing and collective bargaining.
Here is Peter’s Guest Blog:

The Saskatchewan labour movement is challenging initiatives restricting collective bargaining rights by the new provincial government.  In December 2007, the newly elected government introduced Bills 5 and 6 in the Legislature without any prior consultation or even warning to trade unions or the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour.
Bill 5 is now the Public Service Essential Services Act and combines one of the broadest definition of public services in the country with the most extensive coverage in the public sector (including municipalities and universities, for example) and with one of the most restrictive appeal mechanisms.  Thus, an employer, while obligated to try and negotiate essential services with the union prior to the commencement of collective bargaining, may unilaterally designate the services to be maintained in the absence of any subsequent agreement.  And all the union can do in such circumstances is appeal the numbers of employees designated to provide those services before the Labour Relations Board, not whether the services themselves as determined by the employer are in fact essential.
The major impact of Bill 5 is on the collective bargaining process as the bargaining power of those unions and their members affected has now been substantially limited.  An employer can now designate a high level of services that must be maintained and the union’s ability to effectively strike is seriously restrained.  Unlike in the federal jurisdiction, there is no provision that would permit a union to trigger compulsory arbitration to resolve a collective bargaining dispute if the level of essential services designation is such that a strike would become ineffective.
The companion Bill 6 brought in amendments to the Trade Union Act in Saskatchewan.  The most significant is the introduction of mandatory votes for certification without any time frame for those votes taking place.  The concept of union elections has arisen out of the United States and has led to development of a specialty industry that helps employers there avoid unionization.  Unlike other Canadian jurisdictions, the open-ended period for such a vote to be held now in Saskatchewan now raises the spectre of such employer campaigns in this province.
The opportunity for employer coercion and intimidation is also now enhanced in Saskatchewan with the accompanying Bill 6 amendments to the unfair labour practices provisions of the Act that now broaden the scope of acceptable employer communication with employees.  While the repeal of the previous restrictions also impacts on collective bargaining and union-member communication in an established bargaining relationship, the impact may be most strongly felt in the organizing process. Employers, in combination with the mandatory vote in an unspecified period, will now have greater freedom to communicate views on the union drive to employees without fear of running afoul of the Trade Union Act.
These legislation amendments, and the new Public Service Essential Services Act, came into effect in late May 2008 and are now subject to a Charter challenge filed in late July by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and eighteen trade unions operating in the province.  The claim before the Court of QueenÕs Bench will not likely be heard until late this year and any decision is no doubt destined for appeal.  Charter violations alleged include the section 2 freedoms of association, expression, and assembly, along with protections under law pursuant to s7 and the s15 equality rights protections.  The claimants have also alleged that the legislation is in violation of international law, given the ILO and human rights commitments binding on Canada through conventions and other treaties.
It may well be that the overreaching of the Saskatchewan government in its attack on labour may ultimately advance labour rights under the Charter.  We have the previous examples of the Ontario government did with agricultural workers in the late 1990’s that lead to the Supreme Court of Canada’s revisit of freedom of association in Dunmore (2000), and the British Columbia government with health care workers in the early 2000’s that led to overturning the former Labour Trilogy by the Supreme Court in the BC Health Services (2007).
Nonetheless, the Saskatchewan government was not content with introducing the new legislation to advance its political and economic agenda, but also sought to ensure that the application and interpretation of that legislation would be more “business friendly”, as it was put by the Premier, Brad Wall, in various public statements in the legislative debates.  Thus, the chair and the two vice-chairs of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board were summarily fired in March 2007.  The Government, through the Premier and also the Minister of Labour, relied on the claim that the Order in Council appointments could be rescinded without cause.  The former chair and one vice-chair have since reached settlements with the Government.
The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and two unions filed a court action in June to have the Order in Council dismissing the former Chair and vice-chairs and appointing the new Chair, declared void.  The claim is both narrowly and broadly framed.  The narrow claim is that the combination of firing the former members without cause and the stated direction to the new Board to consider the Saskatchewan Party’s policy statements and to create a more business friendly environment in the province (claims which are supported by affidavit evidence of policy statements, legislative demands and media transcripts) has led to institutional bias at the Labour Relations Board.  The broader claim is that the purpose of the Trade Union Act is to promote freedom of association for workers in Saskatchewan and the Government must make appointments to the Board in a manner consistent with that purpose and cannot give policy directions to the Board inconsistent with that purpose. The LRB motion will now be heard at the end of September 2008 and no doubt will generate subsequent appeal activity as well.
The overall objective of these challenges to force the Government to recognize labour rights as fundamental democratic rights.  The SFL and trade unions are also applying political pressure on the Government.  Overall, the fight-back process will be lengthy, but the stakes for Saskatchewan workers and their unions are also very high.

Thanks Peter.  We will watch this lawsuit carefully

0 comment
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
Steelworkers Apply for Certification at Magna
next post
Steelworkers and Magna: The Certification Vote Outcome

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

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 4 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
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.