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

Michael Lynk's Expert Affidavit on the ILO's Law on the Right to Strike

by David Doorey February 9, 2012
written by David Doorey February 9, 2012

Our friend Professor Michael Lynk of Western Law filed an expert affidavit in the recent Saskatchewan Charter case, which I summarized the other day.  Recall that the Saskatchewan Queens Bench ruled there that “freedom of association” in Section 2(d) of the Charter protects a right to strike.  In reaching this decision, Justice Ball relied heavily on ILO law, including the ILO’s expert bodies’ interpretation of Convention 87, which Canada has ratified.


Here is Michael’s Affidavit (with only Michael’s qualifications deleted.  We know Michael’s credentials are golden).

The New Relevance of ILO Interpretations of Freedom of Association in Canada
The fact that Canada has ratified Convention 87 is crucial because in B.C. Health Services, the Supreme Court of Canada said this when it ruled that Section 2(d) protects a right to collective bargaining:

79. In summary, international conventions to which Canada is a party recognize the right of the members of unions to engage in collective bargaining, as part of the protection for freedom of association. It is reasonable to infer that s. 2(d) of the Charter should be interpreted as recognizing at least the same level of protection.

This pronouncement is correct from an international law perspective, yet Canadian labour law still falls far short of the ILO’s other core right:   the right to strike.   The Supreme Court of Canada ruled back in 1987 that Section 2(d) doesn’t protect a right to strike, but the Court is in a period of revisiting and modernizing Section 2(d).  The Saskatchewan ruling, if upheld on Appeal, would move the Canadian model closer to the international law model.  This would fundamentally alter how our governments deal with industrial relations.  For example, it is almost certain that if Canadian law actually did afford workers the right to strike required  under international law, recent restrictions (and threatened restrictions) on that right involving workers at Canada Post, Air Canada, the TTC, York University, and the City of Toronto (garbage collectors) would all be unconstitutional.
ILO Law Requires Canada to Protect an  Expansive Right to Strike
Convention 87 does not expressly include a “right to strike”, but as Michael Lynk’s affidavit notes, the ILO has long concluded that the right to strike is a necessary tool in order to give meaning to the core rights the ILO protects, including the right to collective bargaining:

The right of unionized employees to strike through the peaceful withdrawal of services in order to defend their economic and social interests has been widely accepted as one of the pillars of the freedom to associate, along with the right to organize and the right to collectively bargain. Although the right to strike is not explicitly stated in either Conventions Nos. 87 or 98, the caselaw developed by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the cumulative reports of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations have read the right to strike into the meaning of the freedom of association. A leading ILO study that reviewed the jurisprudence of the two Committees has stated that: “the right to strike is a fundamental right of workers and their organizations;” “strike action is a right and not simply a social act;” and “the right to strike is essential to a democratic society.” The Committee on Freedom of Association has ruled that: the right to strike [is] one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests.”

The Only Situations in Which a Government Can Restrict the Right to Strike
The right to strike is not absolute in international law, but the situations in which it can be restricted are very narrow, as Michael explains in his affidavit  (para. 18):

The exceptions to the right to strike would be limited to the following three indefinite situations:
(i) Public servants who work in core administrative services in the name of the state; those working in high-level or confidential positions; police officers; and members of the armed forces;
(ii) Employees working in essential services, within the strict meaning of that term [Lynk explains later that this means work without which the life, personal safety, or health of the whole or part of the population would be endangered]; and
(iii) Political strikes which are focused on purely political aims such as a change in government (as opposed to strikes on collective bargaining or on broader economic and social policy issues);
and the following four temporary situations:
(iv) Employees working in an industry where the withdrawal of services has exceeded a certain duration and what was once an inconvenience has now become a very serious risk to the life, personal safety or health of part or the whole of the community;
(v) An acute national emergency;
(vi) When a collective agreement is in force; and
(vii) When a withdrawal of labour is, or has become, violent.

What Services are “Essential”, and Which Are Not “Essential”
The ILO has found the following types of services can be essential, and therefore the right to strike limited in so far as in necessary to protect public lives and safety (para. 26):

• the hospital sector
• electricity services
• water supply services
• telephone services
• police and armed forces
• fire-fighting services
• prison services
• the provision of food to school age students and the cleaning of schools
• air traffic control

The following services are NOT essential (are not necessary to protect lives and ensure health and safety) according to international law [Para. 27].  Here’s a game. Identify those sectors on the following list in which Canadian governments have restricted the right to strike by banning it altogether, or by legislating an end to a work stoppage through back-to-work legislation:

• petroleum sector
• radio and television
• ports
• banking
• computer services for the collection of excise duties and taxes
• department stores and pleasure parks
• the metal and mining sectors
• transport generally
• airline pilots
• fuel production, transport and distribution
• railway services
• metropolitan transport
• postal services
• garbage collection services
• refrigeration enterprises
• hotel services
• construction
• automobile manufacturing
• agricultural activities and the supply and distribution of foodstuffs
• the Mint
• the government printing service and the state alcohol and tobacco monopolies
• the education sector
• mineral water bottling company

So, if the Saskatchewan decision is upheld, and the SCC actually meant what it said–Section 2(d) protects at least the level of protection afforded by Convention 87–then Canadian governments will be restricted from banning strikes or imposing back to work legislation in any of the preceding industries, unless those restrictions can be justified under Section 1 of the Charter.

Can you see now why this debate matters?

What Must the Government Substitute for the Right to Strike in the narrow Situations in Which a Strike Ban is Permitted?
Here is an important question in light of some hints dropped by our Federal Minister of Labour last fall.  The Minister suggested that the Government is considering whether the strike and lockout provisions in the Federal Code should be revised. I suggested at the time that the Feds might be considering following the Australian model, which permits the Government to restrict the right to strike when a strike might, in the view of the government, seriously harm “the economy”.   Harm to “the economy” is not a valid reason for banning the right to strike under international law.
The other tactic of the current Federal government is to try and skew the interest arbitration process (which is substituted for the right to strike and lockout) towards the employer’s economic interests.  Michael Lynk points out that, under ILO law, in the limited situations in which a government can restrict the right to strike, the arbitration mechanism that must be substituted must be “impartial“, and the persons appointed to arbitrate must be “seen as such by both the employers and the workers concerned” (para. 25).   The process that the Feds are using in back-to-work legislation these days [described here] is certainly not “impartial” and the people being appointed by the government to hear the disputes are not seen to be impartial either, as evidenced by CUPW’s recent successful challenge of the Minister’s appointment of a person with no labour relations expertise, a choice the Court described as lacking ‘common sense’!
Incorporation of the ILO rules on the right to strike would be a useful check on the disturbing trend of governments to try and interfere with the neutrality and discretion of interest arbitrators.
So there you go.  Thanks Michael for this excellent primer on international labour law, an subject that continues to grow in importance in Canada.  Sure is an interesting time to be a labour law professor and a labour law student.  Stay tuned….
Watch for Professor Roy Adams’ take on the Saskatchewan decision, which will be posted here as a Guest Blog once Roy has finished it.

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
Explaining the Saskatchewan Court's Finding that the Charter Protects a Right to Strike
next post
McLean v. Rawal Limited: A Temporary Layoff of Nonunion Employees Is Probably a Constructive Dismissal

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 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
4h

@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 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
4h

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 13646239761740923167Like on Twitter 136462397617409231612Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
5h

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.