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

Judge Says Federal Minister of Labour's Position Lacks "Common Sense"

by David Doorey February 3, 2012
written by David Doorey February 3, 2012

A Federal Court judge admonished the Federal Minister of Labour, Lisa Raitt, this week in a strongly worded rebuke.  The Judge found that the Minister’s position that she can appoint someone with no labour relations experience to decide the terms of a collective agreement of a national employer lacks “common sense”, and her process “lacked transparency”!
The decision involved a challenge by the postal union (CUPW) to the appointment by Raitt of an Anglophone judge with no labour relations expertise to sit an arbitrator in the legislated interest arbitration flowing from the government’s back to work legislation last summer.
Here is the  Decision, issued last week.
Background:  Recall that last summer the Feds legislated an end Canada Post’s lockout of its employees. I summarized that event at the time. The back-to-work legislation, like that which the government passed in the Air Canada situation, included a number of unusual features aimed at slanting the interest arbitration process it substituted for the right to strike or lockout in favour of the employer.  [Here is the legislation (Bill C-6 Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act)]   One unusual feature was that it gave the sole authority for appointing the interest arbitrator to the Minister, with no requirement to even consult with the parties about this.  Section 8 said this:

8. The Minister must appoint as arbitrator for final offer selection a person that the Minister considers appropriate.

The Minister interpreted this language to mean that she could appoint anyone she likes, even someone who knows nothing about labour relations, Canada Post, the postal industry, who cannot speak a word of French, the language spoken by a large percentage of both management and staff, and who lacks the support of either of the parties to the collective agreement.  The Court disagreed.  Strongly disagreed.
The Decision
This is an important decision, because it shows once again that the Courts will create an obstacle to conservative governments that want to interfere with the interest arbitration system in ways that tarnish the neutrality and objectivity of the system.  Conservatives want someone who is outside of the labour relations community in the hopes that that person will not be concerned about pissing off the unions and the workers, and will therefore be prepared to impose significant concessions on behalf of employers.  The Mike Harris Conservatives in Ontario tried the same tactic back in the 1990s, and were met by an unimpressed Supreme Court.
The most interesting part of the decision is the strongly worded rebuke of the Minister’s position.  The judge wrote that the Minister:

…would like the exercise of ministerial power… to be unobstructed, unguided or not subject to any criteria of qualification or competence for the arbitrator.  In other words, the Minister would merely have to act in good faith and deem the person qualified for it to end the Court’s judiciary review exercise.

The judge soundly rejects this argument, saying that it “is not what is indicated by common sense, case law, the economy of the Act, or the specific labour relations context that govern the parties to the collective agreement.” Ouch.   The Judge continues:

In the case at hand, the lack of transparency inherent in the appointment process followed by the Minister, the little evidence or rationale provided by the Minister and the laconic nature of her communications raise serious questions and indicate that the Minister appears to have excluded, as relevant criteria, the person’s previous labour relations experience and the bilingualism requirement stemming from the specific context under which the final offer arbitrator would have to make his or her final decision.

The Judge rules that the Act requires the Minister to appoint someone with labour relations expertise and who is bilingual.  Both sides expect this much, and failure to do so threatens the work environment.
In the Canada Post case, the arbitrator would be operating under a Final Offer Selection process, which requires the arbitrator to choose either the union’s proposed agreement or the employer’s.  The Judge said, therefore, “the weight of responsibilities is enormous”, and the process is more about “legitimacy” than legality.  Interestingly, the Judge also noted that given the political nature of the process created by the Tory legislation, which contrains the arbitrator’s discretion, “it will be easy to turn the final offer arbitrator into a scape goat.” Therefore, in the “extraordinary process” created by the government for resolving collective bargaining, it is essential that the arbitrator have the initial confidence of both parties.  Otherwise, the result may be “the deterioration of the working environment for years to come.”

Do you think  that elected governments should be entitled to appoint whomever they like to arbitrate collective bargaining disputes?  Or do you agree with courts intervening to require the appointment of people respected in the labour relations community?

2 comments
1
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
Caterpillar Announces its Closing Progress Rail Plant in London
next post
Toronto Work Stoppage Situation Becomes Clearer as Deadline Looms

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 ·
14h

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.