In Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391, a precedent-setting 2007 Supreme Court ruling in a dispute between British Columbia and unionized health services support workers the Supreme Court put strong limits government's ability to impose back-to-work legislation.
Among other things the Court held:
"The imposition of compulsory arbitration in cases where the parties do not reach agreement is generally contrary to the principle of voluntary collective bargaining and is only admissible (in) cases of essential services, administration of the State, clear deadlock, and national crisis"
Writing of back to work legislation the Court notes:
"This may permit interference with the collective bargaining process on an exceptional and typically temporary basis, in situations, for example, involving essential services, vital state administration, clear deadlocks and national crisis."
The York University strike does not look likely to meet these stringent criteria. This is grossly unfair to students, and, realistically, will injure York's reputation for many years, but the Province's hands are tied.
2 comments:
One might argue its a "clear deadlock".
I dont know what the SCC was thinking in the Health Services case. I dont think I've ever seen such convoluted logic out of the SCC. I can see how the phrase "freedom of association" can be construed to mean that you can form voluntary labour organizations and meet and discuss issues; but how it got turned into a right to be bargained with collectively is beyond me. Certainly turns the word "freedom" on its head.
How long would it take for the Supreme Court to rule that the legislation passed on Sunday was illegal?
Post a Comment