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

The Government's Activist Role in Air Canada Bargaining

by David Doorey September 20, 2011
written by David Doorey September 20, 2011

My new industrial relations students will be learning for the first time about how we govern industrial conflict in Canada.  The  latest Air Canada dispute presents an opportunity to discuss the state’s role in collective bargaining in Canada. The Air Canada flight attendants are set to strike, and then to be immediately ordered back to work by Air Canada’s friends in the Conservative government in Ottawa. This isn’t how things usually work.
The legal right to strike (and lockout) is intended to steer the parties towards a negotiated solution, since a work stoppage is usually very costly to both sides.  It is the threat of a strike that gives the workers bargaining power.  Take it away, and the model no longer works as intended.   When strikes have been prohibited, Canadian governments have substituted interest arbitration, a process in which an arbitrator, usually chosen by the parties, sets the collective agreement after hearing arguments from the employer and union.   Interest arbitration is usually applied in the public sector, where workers perform “essential” public services.
The government’s aggressive interference in the collective bargaining at Air Canada is very unusual in several respects.
Firstly, Air Canada is not providing an essential public service. It is not a hospital, police, firefighter.  It is not even a school, transit service, or garbage collector.  It is a private, for profit corporation that sells shares and operates in a highly competitive industry.  There are lots of other airlines that can fly people around if Air Canada is temporarily shut down because of a strike.  In addition, flying is not even an essential requirement for business anymore.  We have Skype, video-conferencing, email, trains, etc.   So it is extremely unusual for a government to be intervening on behalf of a private corporation that does not perform an essential service.
Secondly, because Air Canada knows that if the workers strike, the government will come to their rescue, the incentive to bargain in distorted.  Even when public sector employers know the dispute will go to interest arbitration (when strikes are banned), employers still usually have an incentive to reach a deal because interest arbitration is also unpredictable.  In fact, interest arbitrators have been know to impose collective agreements that employers believe are better than what the workers would have been able to bargain if they had the right to strike.  But the Conservatives have tried to alter this dynamic as well by trying to control the arbitration process in ways designed to favour of the employer.
They assumed unilateral control over selecting the arbitrator, instead of allowing the parties to try and agree on their own as is the usual approach.  This is to ensure that the Tories can pick someone who will not be concerned about pissing off the union.  Usually interest arbitrators are also grievance arbitrators, and they depend for their livelihood on appearing to be fair to both unions and employers.  The Tories don’t want a person like that. They want someone who will care less about long-term labour relations implications, and will apply a more narrow interpretation of the statutory language than an experienced labour relations expert would be inclined to do.  Someone like a judge, for instance, without labour relations expertise.  Someone like the person the Tories appointed to hear the Canada Post arbitration, for example. Predictably, the union there is challenging the judge as an inappropriate selection.
The back-to-work legislation passed during the last Air Canada strike earlier this year also included a set of parameters to guide the government’s hand-picked arbitrator.   These parameters emphasized the employer’s concerns over the employees.  Here is the relevant language (section 11(2):

In making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable airlines and that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short- and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of Air Canada and the sustainability of its pension plan.

Can you see how this tends to emphasize the employer’s interests in keeping labour costs down over the employees’ interests in obtaining a larger share of the revenues?  The legislation the government will introduce on Wednesday if no deal is reached today will almost certainly include the same (or very similar) language.
You can imagine a slightly different set of parameters that could change the emphasis.  Like this for example:

In making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to consider the ratio in executive pay at Air Canada to bargaining unit employees wages, the concessions given by bargaining unit employees in the previous decade, the economic competitiveness of Air Canada, and the sustainability of the pension plan.

Do you think that those parameters would alter the arbitrator’s impressions?   Note that the CEO Robert Milton was paid over $80 million dollars between 2004 and 2009, a period in which unionized workers’ wages were mostly frozen or reduced.
The union will likely point that little fact out to the arbitrator during arguments about the “economic viability” of Air Canada.
Do you think the arbitrator should treat the huge salaries paid to Air Canada executives as relevant when he/she decides how much of a raise and benefit improvement to award the CUPE members?

5 comments
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
Can Employers Pay out Notice Entitlements in Instalments Rather Than Lump Sum? Yes. And No. Maybe.
next post
Explaining the Union's Win in the Air Canada "Final Offer" Arbitration

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 ·
23m

Ya, I wrote a blog piece on this, but the sentence itself is ambiguous! Does it mean you CAN join a picket line on your lunch hour, or you CAN’T?

Grammar. But local folks told me they are banning people from picketing at lunch.

🫡 @andreaharrington@mastodon.social @angrycrank

@JohnSandlos @TheLawofWork

Reply on Twitter 1621293270956392452 Retweet on Twitter 1621293270956392452 Like on Twitter 1621293270956392452 Twitter 1621293270956392452
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

Put together a quick blog post on a subject we've been discussing on Twitter.

"Is Memorial University Illegally Preventing Workers from Joining Picket Lines?"

What do you think?

https://lawofwork.ca/memorialpicketing/

#MemorialStrike #LabourLaw #FreedomofAssociation #CanLab

Reply on Twitter 1621277482719629312 Retweet on Twitter 1621277482719629312 2 Like on Twitter 1621277482719629312 2 Twitter 1621277482719629312
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

STOP MAKING SENSE!

Anthony Francis Dale @anthonyfdale

@TheLawofWork @MemorialU If there is a right to support other employees during non-working time, starting point must be the irrelevance of the fact that lunch is "paid". As Ontario Board said in 1982 Adams Mine case, employer otherwise could prevent exercise of a right by paying money.

Reply on Twitter 1621220629344133120 Retweet on Twitter 1621220629344133120 Like on Twitter 1621220629344133120 3 Twitter 1621220629344133120
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.