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

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

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.