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

Does Qantas Airline Resolution Show Us the Future of Canadian Labour Law?

by David Doorey October 31, 2011
written by David Doorey October 31, 2011

Canada isn’t the only place experiencing labour relations turbulence in the airline industry.  There were airline strikes and lockouts in France and Australia last week.    The lockout by Qantas was just ended by an Australian Tribunal.
The Qantas Situation and the Australian law
The Australian situation involving Qantas is especially interesting because of its similarities to the Canadian Air Canada fiasco. Here’s a very brief synopsis. The unions representing Qantas employees were in a legal strike position and began engaging in a series of short strikes, which disrupted the airline and caused it to cancel some 600 flights. Then, in a sudden and unexpected move, Qantas locked out all of the workers and grounded all flights over the weekend. Qantas, like Air Canada, is the major airline servicing Australia.
A centre-left, Labour government is presently in power in Australia.  However, restrictive labour laws introduced by the previous right of centre government led by John Howard in the 1990s (the “WorkChoices” reforms) remain in place. One of the provisions in that legislation is of interest here in Canada, because it may be a model our Conservative government is looking at, as I noted recently.
The Qantas strikes and lockouts are now over because of a decision of a labour relations tribunal issued yesterday. Here is the decision. The government filed an application similar to our government’s recent “reference” that ended any possibility of an Air Canada flight attendant strike.  Recall that our government had to pretend that an Air Canada strike posed an imminent threat to health and safety of Canadians, a ridiculous claim, in order to bring itself within Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code.  That is the essential services section, which permits the government to ask the Labour Board to ban a strike until issues of health and safety have been dealt with.
In Australia, the Howard government added a part to the equivalent essential service section.  Here is what the legislation says:

s.  424 Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
(1) [The Tribunal] must make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise  agreement that:
(a) is being engaged in; or
(b) is threatened, impending or probable;
if [the Tribunal] is satisfied that the protected industrial action has threatened, is threatening, or would threaten:
(c) to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it; or
(d) to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it.”

The Australian government asked the Tribunal to end the lockout and the strikes, arguing that the work stoppages were causing “significant damage to the Australian economy” and the tourist industry in particular.  The government argued  that tourism was “an important part” of the economy, amounting to 2.6% of GDP and employed 500,000 Australians, and that the strikes and lockouts were threatening significant damage to that industry.
Interestingly, the Tribunal found that the strikes did not cause or threaten to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or the tourism industry.  However, the employer’s response to the strikes, the full-fledged lockout, did (see paragraph 9).  As a result, the Tribunal ordered an end to the work stoppages, and ordered the parties to engage in further conciliation, failing which the Tribunal will act as an interest arbitrator and impose collective agreements.
Here is a Q&A with my labour law professor colleague Anthony Forsyth, from Monash University. Thanks to Anthony for providing me with the details of this situation.
Watch for the Conservative Government to Borrow John Howard’s Move to Make ‘the Economy” Essential
Section 424(1)(d) is precisely what our Canadian Tories want.  Here’s the reform that I predicted last week that we would soon see from our majority Tory government:

87.4 (1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public or serious harm to the Canadian economy.

Look familiar?  Watch for an Australian-like  reform of the Canada Labour Code, coming soon to a Parliament near year.
Do you think that Canadian governments should follow the Australian lead and enact a power to order an end to strikes and lockouts whenever they “threaten serious economic harm”?

If so, what evidence should be required to prove “serious economic harm”?
 

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
The Economist: Taxing the Rich
next post
Canadian Industrial Relations Association Conference Call for Papers

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·
14h

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·
18h

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.