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

Is Beer-Making an Essential Service?

by David Doorey April 2, 2012
written by David Doorey April 2, 2012

In Canada, we’ve been witnessing a watering down of the meaning of “essential service” for some time.  Now a Lithuanian Court has taken this trend to ridiculous new lengths, ruling that Carlsberg’s beer-makers are “vitally essential” and therefore that they cannot exercise the legal right to strike available to non-essential workers.
This is what can happen when the “right to strike” is treated as a joke by governments.  Canadian governments know all about that.  Here, we treat the people who change the recycling bags on subway platforms,  teaching assistants, and airline ticket agents as “essential”.  Are we really that far from declaring alcohol makers “essential” too?
The world’s leading institution on the right to strike is the International Labour Organization, which is comprised of representatives of government, employers, and workers’s organizations.  This tri-partite structure gives the ILO a heightened credibility.  However, in recent years, many democratic governments, including Canada’s, have been routinely ignoring the ILO whenever gets in the way of their political agenda.  As long as the public doesn’t support a strike, our governments feel they are justified banning them.  And contemporary Canadians are unusually squeamish about any labour dispute that causes them any inconvenience whatsoever.  The right not to be adversely impacted by a strike seems more important than the right to strike in Canada these days.   This contrasts sharply with the idea of the ‘right to strike’ at the ILO.  The ILO perceives the right to strike to be an essential and necessary component of any capitalist and democratic system, since it provides the only means for workers to apply pressure on employers to win a greater share of a firm’s wealth, and ensuring workers obtain a good share of the wealth they generate is absolutely crucial to ensuring political and economic stability and avoiding high levels of income inequality.
Therefore, according to the ILO, all workers should have a right to strike when they believe this makes sense in their circumstances.  The only restrictions on the right to strike involve jobs that are “essential to protect the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”. Michael Lynk explained the ILO’s approach to the right to strike in his affidavit to the Saskatchewan Court in the recent decision in which the “right to strike” was found to be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The difference between the “strike as a right” view (of the ILO) and the strike as interference with the economy and of citizens (of many of our governments in Canada) is one of perspective.  If you stand back and view strikes as an important means by which democratic nations can distribute wealth and allow worker expression and frustration to be channeled, then you would want to give broad protection of strikes.  While individual strikes may irritate or cause economic harm to others in the short run, in the long run, strikes do not destroy economies and life goes on.  The Canadian economy can survive a strike at Air Canada, Canada Post, or the TTC–as it has done before.
If you look at a more micro level, at how an individual work stoppage will temporarily impact bystanders in the short run, then you will want the government to be watching every single dispute and to be  weighing the right to strike against the impact of the strike on every other person at a particular moment in time.  Even though a strike at Air Canada or the TTC will not destroy the economy or lead to deaths or sickness, it will cause economic harm or irritation to March Break travellers in the short run, and therefore the strike should be banned.
I mentioned last week how the ILO found the Ontario government in violation of ILO rules about respecting the right to strike of agricultural workers.  Canadian governments have also decided in recent years that the following jobs are essential: garbage collectors, teachers, teaching assistants, airline baggage handlers, airline ticket collectors, pilots, ticket collectors at a transit company, TTC mechanics and janitors.  Are any of these jobs essential to protecting “life, personal safety, or health of the whole or part of the population”?  Obviously not, which is why Canada is routinely the target of ILO rebukes, even being singled out a few years back for special concern for its failure to respect the rights of its people to engage in industrial action. 
My own sense is that our governments have become so cavalier about restricting the right to strike whenever it suits them politically that the Supreme Court will indeed step up and recognize a right to strike in the Charter.  This is what happened to usher in the Charter right to collective bargaining–the BC government’s disdain for collective bargaining as demonstrated in its willingness to completely ignore unions and complete disregard of collective agreements so disturbed the Supreme Court that they felt it necessary to intervene.  There are several cases raising the right to strike winding their way up the judicial ladder (including Charter challenges against the Feds’ intervention at Canada Post and Air Canada and the Saskatchewan government’s ban on public workers’ right to strike).  When the Court does finally recognize a right to strike, these governments will have themselves to blame.

What do you think?  Do you support the use of strike bans by governments for workers who are not needed for the protection of health and safety?

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
Ontario Government Violates International Labour Law…Again
next post
Human Rights Game: Does this Toronto Star Job Ad Violate Human Rights Code?

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 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

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

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
17h

A Nationwide Bargaining Unit to Fight Starbucks Is a Moon Shot Worth Trying

My latest on ⁦@jacobin⁩. https://jacobin.com/2022/08/starbucks-service-unions-nlrb-law-centralized-bargaining/

Reply on Twitter 1556339370461786112Retweet on Twitter 15563393704617861122Like on Twitter 155633937046178611211Twitter 1556339370461786112
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
20h

Luck is part of it for sure. Right time right place. True of a lot of jobs not just academia.

But in my experience sitting on lots of academic hiring committees, people selected have superior CVs. 60 applicants, one position. Not all luck. It’s a very competitive job market.

David Webster@dwebsterhist

I've been hired for 2 tenure track jobs and been on multiple committees, sent in more than 100 job applications, and done multiple interviews. Here is my thread 🛢
of job market advice for early career academics based on decades of experience:

1. Get lucky.

Reply on Twitter 1556285407817506817Retweet on Twitter 1556285407817506817Like on Twitter 15562854078175068171Twitter 1556285407817506817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6 Aug

Sunflowers!

Reply on Twitter 1556032894640037890Retweet on Twitter 1556032894640037890Like on Twitter 15560328946400378905Twitter 1556032894640037890
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.