‘Stay tuned’: Canada’s unions considering legal action to protect right to strike

OTTAWA — Another legal battle may be brewing between the labour movement and the federal government over its proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code.

Sign In or Create an Account

Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske said that after thorough examination of the Building Canada Strong Act introduced Monday and meeting with the heads of Canada’s unions, “we’re looking at all of our options legally and otherwise.”

“I can’t speak for every single union. Obviously, we’ve had many meaningful conversations with all of our union partners over the last 24 hours. We will take that one moment at a time. It’s only day two, so stay tuned,” she told reporters on Tuesday.

Bruske said Canada’s unions are all in favour of doing their part in the midst of a trade war with the United States by creating more jobs and safeguarding those they already have. But the legislation introduced by the government goes too far, she said.

“Make no mistake, this is an attack on the workers’ rights to be able to meaningfully get to the bargaining table and to leverage the only power that they have, which is to withdraw their labour,” Bruske said in a press conference on Parliament Hill.

“Each union is going to make a decision in terms of how they navigate their upcoming rounds of bargaining. But this is clearly putting the lever on the side of employers.”

The country’s unions had already filed applications for judicial review with the Federal Court system to challenge the government’s use of Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end strikes across the country and refer all matters to binding arbitration.

Labour leaders were hoping to see Section 107 removed from the labour code in the new legislation.

Instead, the Building Canada Strong Act, or Bill C-39, creates what Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu called “clear guardrails” around when the controversial tool can be used by the federal government to put an end to a work stoppage in federally regulated areas.

The legislation states that the minister would have to be of the opinion that the strike or lockout that is underway is adversely affecting the “national interest” — either by having a “significant impact” on the economy or causing “serious social disruption.”

The minister would also have to consider a report from a new special mediator role who will have 21 days to mediate the work dispute between the parties.

By adding these changes, the bill is essentially circumventing the existing court challenges on the use of Section 107, said Mark Rowlinson, a lawyer at Goldblatt Partners LLP invited by the Canadian Labour Congress to speak to the media.

“Such legislation is the clearest possible violation, not only the Canadian Constitution but the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he said of Bill C-39.

Rowlinson said the bill offers a clear roadmap for employers who want to avoid a strike: persuade the minister to appoint a mediator, get a report indicating the parties are too far apart to reach an agreement and then quash a strike in the “national interest.”

“It provides the complete and unlimited discretion to the federal minister to decide who gets to go on strike, and who does not,” he said.

Rowlinson also said the new bill completely removes the need for any government to introduce, debate and pass back-to-work legislation in the House of Commons.

“In a democratic society, respectfully, it is the workers who should get to decide whether or not they want to go out on strike, and maybe it is the legislature that should have to debate back-to-work legislation,” he said.

“It should not be entirely within the discretion of the minister.”

Bruske said there are important measures in Bill C-39 that workers and unions have long fought for, including protections against contract-flipping and wage theft, and she welcomes more funding for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to do its work.

But she said unions are united in opposing any new restrictions on the right to strike, and are asking the government to remove powers relating to Section 107 from the bill.

The United Steelworkers’ National Director Marty Warren echoed her comments.

“We were clear: the right to strike is a red line. Section 107 should be repealed, not rewritten to make it easier for the government to intervene in legal strikes,” he said in a statement. “The government didn’t listen.”

“Instead, it’s giving the labour minister extraordinary discretion to override workers’ fundamental right to strike without a vote or prior approval by Parliament.”

Hajdu said after the introduction of Bill C-39 that any suggestion that the government is weakening the right to strike is “incorrect.”

“In terms of workers’ rights, we’re actually strengthening their rights,” she said.

Bruske said she is “100 per cent in opposition” to that assertion.

National Post
calevesque@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.