Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) | |
---|---|
Hearing: June 27-28, 1985 Judgment: April 9, 1987 | |
Citations | [1987] 1 SCR 313 |
Prior history | On appeal from the Court of Appeal of Alberta |
Ruling | Appeal dismissed |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice | Dickson CJ |
Puisne Justices | Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ |
Reasons given | |
Plurality | Le Dain J, joined by Beetz and La Forest JJ |
Concurrence | McIntyre J |
Dissent | Dickson CJ, joined by Wilson J |
Chouinard J did not participate in the final disposition of the judgment. | |
Laws applied | |
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(d) | |
Superseded by | |
Dunmore v Ontario (AG) | |
Overruled by | |
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan |
Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, commonly referred to as the Alberta Reference, was a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The Court held that section 2(d) did not include the right to strike. [1] In 2015, Alberta Reference was overruled, with the Court recognizing a right to strike in the Charter.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms entered into force in 1982. The Alberta Reference provided the Supreme Court of Canada with an opportunity to interpret the scope of protection afforded to collective bargaining and strikes under the Charter.
The province of Alberta referred a reference question to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which was decided in favour of the Government of Alberta. The reference questions concerned Alberta labour relations legislation affecting public service employees, firefighters, hospital employees, and police officers. The laws restricted the right to strike: any impasse in collective bargaining had to be referred to compulsory arbitration. As well, the laws designated certain factors that had to be considered in said arbitration, and limited the scope of issues that were arbitrable. [1]
The appellants, various public sector labour unions, were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Justice McIntyre argued that freedom of association is an individual right, intended to protect collective activities that are already protected by other constitutional rights. Thus, activities that are prohibited individually are also forbidden collectively. As such, a trade union does not have a Charter right to strike incident to collective bargaining.
The plurality opinion (written by Justice Le Dain) spanned only three paragraphs, and agreed with Justice McIntyre's disposition. The plurality referred to the many types of associations that the Charter is intended to protect, and the importance of freedom of association, but also emphasized the importance of judicial restraint.
Chief Justice Dickson, in dissent, also agreed with the characterization of the freedom, but argued that the right is not associated with particular activities but rather is "a freedom of persons to join and act with others in common pursuits".
This case involved a "double-swing decision" where Chief Justice Dickson was assigned the reasons for the Court at conference but lost the signatures to Justice McIntyre, who then lost them to Justice Le Dain.
In 2001, the Supreme Court decided Dunmore v Ontario (Attorney General) , which rejected a strictly individualized approach to section 2(d) reflected in the majority reasons of the Alberta Reference. The SCC in Dunmore acknowledged that section 2(d) reflects collective, not just individual, rights, and found that substantial interference with the ability of workers to engage in "collective action" would infringe section 2(d). [2]
The Alberta Reference was explicitly overturned in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan , with a majority of the SCC recognizing a constitutionally-protected right to strike under section 2(d) of the Charter. The majority decision in that case specifically referred to Chief Justice Dickson's dissenting reasons in the Alberta Reference. [3]
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, sometimes referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter.
Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.
In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula is a workplace compromise arising from jurisprudence struck between organized labour and employers that guarantees employers industrial stability by requiring all workers affected by a collective agreement to pay dues to the union by mandatory deduction in exchange for the union agreement to "work now, grieve later."
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
Canada v Paul L'Anglais Inc. et al. [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional decision on the jurisdiction of the superior courts to hear constitutional arguments. The unanimous court found that courts of inherent jurisdiction such as the Quebec Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction to hear constitutional cases.
Dunmore v Ontario (AG), 2001 SCC 94 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that the lack of a positive framework that protected farm workers from employer reprisals for exercising their associational rights under the Charter constituted a "substantial interference" of their right to freedom of association. The Ontario government responded with the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which extended only to agricultural workers and prohibited employer reprisals against employees exercising their rights under section 2(d) of the Charter.
Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, commonly known as the Prostitution Reference, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution in Canada. Manitoba's Appeal Court had ruled the legislation violated the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by constraining communication in relation to legal activity. The case was referred to the Supreme court.
Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.
Canadian labour law is that body of law which regulates the rights, restrictions, and obligations of trade unions, workers, and employers in Canada.
Delisle v Canada (Deputy AG), [1999] 2 SCR 989 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the freedom of association guarantee under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court defined the freedom as only applying to individuals and not associations themselves. Accordingly, they found the exclusion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) from the public services legislation did not violate section 2(d).
British Columbia Government Employees' Union v British Columbia (AG), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to picket as a freedom of expression under section 2(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canadian privacy law is derived from the common law, statutes of the Parliament of Canada and the various provincial legislatures, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Perhaps ironically, Canada's legal conceptualization of privacy, along with most modern legal Western conceptions of privacy, can be traced back to Warren and Brandeis’s "The Right to Privacy" published in the Harvard Law Review in 1890, Holvast states "Almost all authors on privacy start the discussion with the famous article 'The Right to Privacy' of Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis".
Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.
Joseph James Arvay, was a Canadian lawyer who argued numerous landmark cases involving civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan [2015] 1 SCR 245 is a Canadian labour law case on the right to strike.
Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v British Columbia [2007] 2 SCR 391 is a landmark Canadian labour law case concerning freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Charter protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining.
R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd. [2001] 3 SCR 209 is a Canadian labour law case concerning compulsory trade union membership in the Quebec construction industry. The Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Quebec law in question. A divided Court affirmed the law's constitutionality.
Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada [2015] 1 SCR 3 is a leading Canadian labour law case concerning freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court concluded that the exclusion of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers from unionization and collective bargaining was unconstitutional, overruling Delisle v Canada. Along with Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan and Meredith v Canada , the decision in MPAO represented a significant evolution in the interpretation of section 2(d), clarifying the legal standard applicable under that provision.
Ontario v Fraser [2011] 2 SCR 3 is a Canadian labour law case concerning the protection of collective bargaining under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At issue was an Ontario law that created a separate labour relations regime for agricultural workers. The Court considered the standard for establishing a breach of section 2(d) in cases where government action is alleged to interfere with collective bargaining rights. A majority of the Court upheld the law, finding no breach of sections 2(d) or 15 of the Charter.