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

The Government's Attempt to Legislate Air Canada's Bargaining Agenda

by David Doorey June 17, 2011
written by David Doorey June 17, 2011

Welcome to the new Canadian nanny state, curtesy of  the majority Conservative government.
The Air Canada strike ended with a settlement this week.  I haven’t seen the terms, but the CAW is  reporting that it includes continuation of the defined benefit pension plan for existing employees, but for future employees, the terms of the pension plan are being sent to an arbitrator.
This settlement followed on the heels of an extraordinary piece of legislation introduced in Parliament by the majority Conservative party just days into a strike that was having very little negative impact on the airline according to its own spokesperson, and even less impact on the airline industry. Here is the Bill that the Government introduced.
It’s extraordinary because unlike the usual back-to-work legislation Canadian governments introduce more than any other democratic country in the world, this legislation actually chooses sides.  Surprise,  the Tories sided with the employer!  The legislation referred the bargaining disputes to an arbitrator.  Normal.  It legislated an end to the strike.   Normal.   It defined the arbitration process–“final offer selection”.  Not common. Final Offer Selection requires the union and the employer to submit collective agreement language on the issues in the disputes, and then limits the arbitrator to selecting the one or other. The theory behind this process is that FOS forces the parties to come forward with reasonable and realistic proposals, since an unreasonable and unrealistic proposal will be rejected by the arbitrator.
It gave the government, rather than the parties themselves, the right to pick the arbitrator. Extremely rare. This is part of the nanny state nature of the proposed law:  the parties can’t be trusted to chose an arbitrator that will implement the government’s collective bargaining strategy, so the government wants to chose the arbitrator itself.  Maybe it will be one of those retired judges with no labour relations experience or credibility in the labour relations community that the Mike Harris regime preferred back in the 1990s.  Recall how the Harris government’s attempt to appoint non-labour relations experts unacceptable to unions was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court of Canada in CUPE v. Ontario.
And then the legislation told the arbitrator to chose the option that best protects the employer’s interests.  Virtually unheard of. Read section 11(2):

(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.

Firstly, back-to-work legislation targeting a private, for profit, publicly-trade corporation is almost unheard of.  Back-to-work legislation is a tool used to protect the public from disruptions of publicly provided services.  Air Canada does not provide a public service, and there are a bunch of other for-profit airlines ready to fill the demand.  A government directing an arbitrator in a dispute involving a private corporation to focus on the employer’s desire to have “flexibility” and the competitiveness of the industry is extremely unusual. Is anyone aware of back-to-work legislation targeting a publicly traded corporation that directs an arbitrator to focus on the employer’s demands?
For a Conservative government that talks a whole lot about small government and reducing government’s fingerprint on business, this is government intervention in private business affairs in the extreme.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that this language would lead an independent, neutral arbitrator to side with the employer’s position.  Even this language is vague enough to allow an arbitrator to reject a proposal by Air Canada that attempts to gut the collective agreement or its pension plan.   Respected interest arbitrators have shown remarkable resistance to politicians telling them to weigh the employers’ interests over the employees’. Arbitrators are labour relations experts who understand the dynamics and realities of collective bargianing, unlike politicians, who are concerned with being re-elected.
For example, to an arbitrator, the “economic viability and competitiveness” of Air Canada depends on a whole range of factors that don’t involve the collective agreement. Take for example the CEO of Air Canada who was happily granted a 75% raise last year, from $2.6 million to $4.6 million in one year!   If Air Canada can afford those sorts of raises and salaries for its senior employees, then it’s viability mustn’t be threatened by slight improvements in wages and benefits for  the unionized workers at the bottom, right?
The terms and conditions at “comparable” airlines must be considered, but what is “comparable” to Air Canada?  British Airways?  Swiss Air?  U.S. Airways?  Westjet?  Take your pick of comparators, arbitrator.   How do you compare those companies?  If the airline is new, like Westjet, it would be expected to have lower labour costs, since it’s employees have very little seniority and little pension costs.  No respectable arbitrator would interpret the above language to mean that they are being directed to initiate a race to the bottom in working conditions in the airline industry.
The “sustainability” of the pension plan could also prove to be a meaningless parameter.  Of course that would be considered, as it is by the parties in collective bargaining.  Neither side wants the pension plan to fail.  The parties just disagree on what is required for the sustainability of the pension plan. Both have pension experts and their is no obvious right answer.   The union would make an argument that the pension plan is sustainable under whatever proposal it makes, as would the employer.  The arbitrator could chose either and justify his/her conclusion.
In the end, unless the government wants to turn into a nanny state and actually legislate employment contracts for the parties—and perhaps this government is heading in that direction–it is difficult to convince respectable arbitrators to just give employers whatever they want by trying to tell them what to consider.  Hence the need for the government to control who the arbitrator is.
Next stop on the government’s legislation-happy train:  Canada Post. Stay tuned…

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
Ho-Hum, Another Huge Verdict Against Walmart for Mistreatment of Employees
next post
B.C. Court Confirms that Law Firm Partners are "Employees" Under Human Rights Legislation

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·
10h

@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·
10h

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·
12h

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.