Supreme Court reverses itself in landmark ruling hailed as `victory for workers' (Canada)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: The Star


Top court protects bargaining

Supreme Court reverses itself in landmark ruling hailed as `victory for workers' from coast to coast
Jun 09, 2007 04:30 AM
Tracey Tyler
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER

The collective bargaining process is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday in a decision affecting workplaces from coast to coast.

The Charter's freedom of association guarantee gives government workers the right to unite and present demands to their employers, who have a corresponding obligation to sit down and discuss them, the court said in a stunning reversal of its previous rulings on the issue.

But yesterday's decision could also affect private-sector workplaces. Writing for the 6-1 majority, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louis LeBel said the Charter restrains legislatures from passing laws that interfere "substantially" in collective bargaining activities.

That means any attempt to pass wage and price controls or anti-inflation measures favoured by the federal government in the 1970s would likely fail.

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/223426

[Kagemusha]

1. Well it's not much for consistency in the law but the reasoning seems sound.

I just wonder why they couldn't view freedom of association as meaning that back in (according to the rest of the article) the 1980's, since that Charter was law in like, 1982 at latest?

Better late than never?

[Canuckistanian]

3. It's only recently that some provinces have tried to restrict collective baragining

And I think the court is recognizing some of the toxic practices of large companies and multi-nationals who threaten employees for organizing.

The Quebec Walmart that ALMOST got organized (before Walmart shut it down) angered a lot of people.

[Kagemusha]

4. In years past I heard all about shutting bargaining down for nurses.

It's almost a strange case.. doctors aren't unionized, nurses were getting more and more doctor-like responsibilities, raising the bar for entry into the profession, but wanted the full advantage of unions at a time of country-wide provincial financial shortfalls. (The nurses didn't cause that one - that was the federal government, as I recall.) These shortfalls led to the wage freezes and then the anti-bargaining measures that apparently were the subject of this litigation... which did strike me at the time as of questionable legality.

The point being, it doesn't really matter what the court said in the past - having said this is a Charter right this time around, Parliament cannot fight it any more than it could have fought gay marriage.

[applegrove]

2. Wage and Price controls failed anyway. They never worked.