CollectiveBargaining
LabourLawandtheCharter
intheSupremeCourtofCanada
to
StevenBarreJohnCraig*
This chapterprovides anoverview anda nalysisof the SupremeCourt
ofCan adassh ifting approach tot heg uarantee off reedomof associa
tionundersectiondoftheCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsas
itappliestolabourrelations andcollectivebargai ningWefocusont he
Courtstreatmentof the questionof whethersect iondincludescon
stitutional protection forthe right toorgan izet heright to collectively
bargain and the right to strike While the Court sapproach in apply
ingthe justicatorycr iteriaundersec tion oftheCharter tolegislation
itnds unconstitutiona land the resulting remedial questions are also
signicant issues in considering the ambit of associational rights thi s
chapterisdirectedattheCourt sdelineationofthescopeandcontentof
sectionditself
InPartAwetracetheevolutionoftheCourtsthinkingasitrelates
toconstitutionalprotec tionfororganizing bargaininga ndstrikeactiv
ityInour viewanu nderstandingof the doctrinal developmentofthe
Courtsunderstandi ngof sect iondis crit icalto any appreciation of
theCourt spresentviewandhowthatviewmayevolveinfuturecases
PartAbeginswiththeinitialjudicialcreationofavirtualnogozone
establishedby the freedomof association trilogyThisrestrictiveap
proachtotherecognitionofcollectivebargainingrightsundersectiond
StevenBarreisman agingpart neratGoldblaPartnersLLPJohnCraigisa
partnerint helabourandemploymentdepar tmentatFaskenLLPandanassi stant
professoratWesternLaw
SBJC
wastolast foralmost fteen yearsbutbegan toerode witha moreex
pansive conception of the protection for union organi zing activity in
Dunmore and for collective bargaining itsel f in Health Services
. Thisgrowi ngrecog nitionofa broader scopefor sectiondin
labourrelations andcollect ivebargaining wastemporarily interrupted
bya morecautious andreact ionary pausein Frase r whic h sanc
tioned a separate and somewhat anemic collective bargaini ngr egime
foragricu lturalworkers Howeverfouryears laterin the trilogy
the Court returned to a broad and purposive conception oft he scope
ofsection dprotectionparticularly inM PA Oand inSF L,whichex
tendedsectiondprotectiontotherighttostrikeMostrecentlyhow
eversomeuncertaintyhasbeencreatedastotheprecisecontoursofthe
righttoba rgaincollect ivelybythe Courtsbriefa ndcry pticreasons in
BCTF
PartB the nt urns to an assessment of what weregard as th ree of
themost importantu nresolvedissues arising fromt heSupremeCour t
of Canadasrevised approach to freedom of associat ioni n the labour
relations and collective bargaini ng eld the role of prelegislative
consultationinsatisf yingthesect iondrequirementforameaningful
processofcollec tivebargaini ngthecurrentstat usofthesubstantial
interferencetest fora violationof section dand the impactof the
Court srevi sedap proac htos ect iondont helaw offorc edas soci ation
AOV E RVI EWOF T HESC C S E VOLV I N G
APPROACH TO SECTION (D)
FreedomofAssociationTrilogy
Whilesectiondappliesto all associational activityithas been most
litigated and its meaning most hotly contested in its application to
labourrelations Int herst yearsafter the enactmentof theCharterin
whatcame tobe knownas the freedomof association trilogythe
Court wasfaced with th rees eparatech allenges tolegi slationi nterfer
ingwith fundamental componentsoft hecollective bargaining system
Int heReference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta)case the
challengedlegislationlimitedt herightto strikefor publicsectorwork
ersI nR etail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v Saskatchewan th e
Saskatchew an Dairy Workerscaselegislationordering striking workers
SCRAlberta Reference
SCR
Collective Bargaining, Labour Law, and the CharterintheSupremeCourt
backtoworkwasatissueInthePublic Service Alliance of Canada v Canada
casethelegislationunderchallengeoverrodefreelynegotiatedcollect
iveagreements andimposed wagecontrols Thet hreecasesraisedthe
questionof whethersec tiondprovidedconst itutionalprotect ionfor
collectivebargainingorther ighttostrike
InthetrilogytheSupremeCourtofCanadaadoptedarest rict
ivea ndn arrow approach to the scope and content of the freedom of
associationguaranteeonedepar tingfromthebroada ndpurposiveap
proach the Court had articu lated in relation to other Charterrightsa nd
freedomsI nth etr ilo gyt heCo urt ru ledt hatfr eedo mofass oci ati ond id
notincludearighttocollectivebargainingorstrikeRatherthefreedom
extended protection only to the right to form and join an as sociation
whatcanbedescribedasformativeactivityInadditionsomemem
bers of the Court while reject ing protection for collective bargaining
activityrecog nized doctri nally that section dshould extend to the
right to engage collectively in those associational act ivities that were
otherwiselawfulwhenca rriedoutbyanindividual
While the four members of the Cour ts majority had dierent
reasons for rejecting a n expansive reach for collective bargaining in
thesphereoflabou rrelationsthey putforwardfourbasic rationalesin
supportoftheconclusionthatt heCharterdidnotprotectcollectivebar
gainingortherighttostr ikenamely
a therightstobargaincollectivelyandtostrikeweremodernrights
createdbylegislationandwerenotthe kindoffundamenta lfree
domsthattheCharterprotected
b recognizing a r ightto collec tive bargaining would interfere with
government regulation of labour relations and the court s should
defertogovernmentsinthesensitiveareaofcalibratingt hebalance
ofpowerbetweenunionsandemployers
c sectiondwasnotintendedtoprotecttheobjectsgoalsoractiv
itiesofassociationand
SCRPSAC
Seeforexampleinthesec tionbcontexttheSupremeCour tofCanadas
decision in IrwinToyLtdvQuébecAor neyGeneralSCRdealingwith
theexpressiong uaranteeinse ctionboftheCharterTheretheCourttookavery
broadapproachtothecontentofse ctiondrejectingadi stinctionbe tweenbelief
andactionandr ulingthatse ctionbprotectsanyac tivityintend ingtoconvey
meaningiealle xpressiveactivit ywithviolentactivitycon stitutingt heonly
exceptionBycontrastt hemajorityinth eAlberta Reference held that there is no s ec
tiondprotectionforpurelyorin herentlyassoc iationalactiv ityregardlessofits
natureorpurp ose
