Court strikes down Saskatchewan essential services law but allows tough restrictions on unionization
February 6, 2012 - 9:30pm
.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Saskatchewan essential services law struck down
In a 132-page decision, released Monday, Regina Justice Dennis Ball said the Public Service Essential Services Act — also known as Bill 5 — infringes on workers' rights and is of "no force or effect."
However, a "declaration of invalidity" will be suspended for a year, Ball said. [...]
The problem with Saskatchewan's law, Ball ruled, is that it doesn't give employees an adequate dispute resolution process where they can challenge which employees are designated as essential. [...]
"No other essential services legislation in Canada comes close to prohibiting the right to strike as broadly, and as significantly, as the PSES Act," he said. [...]
Ball was also asked to look at Bill 6, amendments to the Trade Union Act, which ended the practice of automatic union certification in cases where a majority of employees sign union cards. Instead, a secret ballot vote is required to unionize a workplace.
The Trade Union Act amendments also raised the threshold percentage of workers needed to trigger a vote — to 45 per cent from 25 per cent.
However, Ball rejected arguments that the Trade Union Act amendments were unconstitutional.
This is pretty huge: the decision actually recognizes a constitutional right to strike. The next logical step after the constitutional recognition of collective bargaining (only in 2007...). Will read tomorrow.
Ah yes, 132 pages...
Thank God for Bärlüer!
Nice to see the MSM fighting back against the dictatorship of the Saskatchewan Party:
Ruling on labour smacks government
Crucial in the subtle battle for the hearts and minds of those in the "new Saskatchewan" has been to portray a self-entitlement image of left-wingers in the "old Saskatchewan."
The underlying messaging from Premier Brad Wall's government since the Saskatchewan Party's victory in 2007 has clearly been that the province's hardworking taxpayers no longer shall be bullied by leftist elitists who abused their unearned, elevated status during years of NDP rule. [...]
The government's propaganda machine also hasn't been shy about less directly implying the same message, particularly on the labour front. Its fight always has been with union leaders - not rank and file workers who've always somehow been duped into voting for strikes by leaders working against New Saskatchewan's interests.
Such is the stranglehold of this almighty union leadership that it was the government's duty to free the rank and file from the shackles of leaders, who eagerly waste precious union dues on writ-period ads critical of the government. [...]
So, after years of being told that the only issue here was the squawking of union leaders too used to getting their own way, a senior justice has now told us that the government's bill essentially bullies Saskatchewan workers.
The ruling is a blow to the Wall government, and its entire narrative.
It's not as positive a ruling as the headlines would lead you to believe. It upheld the elimination of card check. And it found the problem with the law was not the classification process, but the failure to set out a procedure for determining classification:
"The problem with Saskatchewan's law, Ball ruled, is that it doesn't give employees an adequate dispute resolution process where they can challenge which employees are designated as essential."
Josh, you're right about card check, but I tried to reflect that in the thread title.
As for essential services, it is impossible to get a ruling that all essential service legislation is unconstitutional. Even the ILO conventions, which sturdily defend the right to strike in a way that is still not recognized in this country, makes exceptions for various services. For example, the Canada Labour Code prohibits the withdrawal of services when that withdrawal would create "an immediate and serious danger to the health and safety of the public". Those are universally recognized as legitimate limitations on strikes and lockouts. And contrary to the Saskatchewan legislation, there is a dispute resolution process which is actually functional.
However, Parliament is "supreme" (that is, whichever party controls Parliament), so it regularly bans strikes and imposes binding arbitration beyond what the Code allows, by ad hoc legislation. I don't know enough about the Saskatchewan law to know how draconian it is (aside from the dispute resolution issue). But to hope that the court would strike all that down is unfortunately to be overly optimistic.
Ah yes, 132 pages...
Thank God for Bärlüer!
Hey Bärlüer - have you finished doing my reading for me yet??