Farm workers have no right to unionize
So says Canada's Supreme Court in an 8-1 ruling.
The Supreme Court of Canada dealt a harsh blow to the union movement today, ruling in favour of an Ontario law that restricts the right of farm workers to bargain collectively.
The Court said that the constitutional right to free association guarantees that "meaningful" negotiations take place between workers and their employers - but it is not intended to police the mechanics of how those negotiations take place.
"What is protected is associational activity, not a particular process or result," the majority said. "The Ontario legislature is not required to provide a particular form of collective bargaining rights to agricultural workers, in order to secure the effective exercise of their associational rights."
The case was seen as a key test of the constitutional right to free association, a section of the Charter of Rights that has evolved less than many others.
The plaintiffs - farm workers and a major union - had complained that an Ontario law that allowed them to form employee associations but prohibited them from forming unions, violated S. 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Writing for five judges in the 8-1 majority, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Mr. Justice Louis LeBel said that the Charter guarantees only the right to good faith negotiations.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/farm-workers-have-no-right-to-unionize-top-court-rules/article2003759/
Link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/farm-workers-have-n...
The dissenting opinion might be interesting. (8-1). Anyone got a link or willing to do the work to summarize it ?
You can see the extreme right-wing's plans here:
Two other judges in the majority – Madam Justice Louise Charron and Mr. Justice Marshal Rothstein, went further, denouncing a previous Supreme Court ruling that effectively created a constitutional right to collective bargaining.
“Section 2(d) protects the liberty of individuals to associate and engage in associational activities,” they said. “It protects the freedom of workers to come together, to form a bargaining position and to present a common and united front to their employers. It does not protect a right to collective bargaining nor does it impose duties on others, such as the duty to bargain in good faith on employers.”
To the extent that a recent court ruling constitutionalized collective bargaining, they said, “it was not correctly decided. It should be overturned thus disposing of the constitutional challenge in this case.”
And Rosalie Abella's lone dissent:
However, in a sharp dissent, Madam Justice Rosalie Abella said that the Ontario law was decidedly unresponsive to the need to extend collective bargaining rights to agricultural workers.
“Preventing all agricultural workers from access to a process of collective bargaining in order to protect family farms, no matter their size or nature of the agricultural enterprise, harms the s. 2(d) right in its entirety, not minimally,” Judge Abella said.
“It is worth noting too that all provinces except Alberta give agricultural workers the same collective bargaining rights as other employees,” she added. “There is no evidence that this has harmed the economic viability of farming in those provinces, or that the nature of farming in Ontario uniquely justifies a severely restrictive rights approach.”
Workers' rights will be the last to receive true constitutional protection in this country - but of course that may only happen on the day capitalism is flushed once and for all.
Count me amoung the surprised at this decision.
Hiding behind the smoke and mirrors of "family farms" is a bit rich for my farmpunk tastes.
Farmpunk hits a six.
Yikes!
Can a mod get rid of the extras?
Babble was working really weird when I tried to post that. I didn't think I posted anything, haha.
You've made your point, Farmpunk.
I'm counting you among the 6 surprised people.
You can say that again.
What's a "family farm?"
Well, weren't they saying if they allowed unions it would destroy the "family farm"?? which to be sure, is of course another word for the huge corporations importing temp labour who have offices in mexico and overseas for exactly this reason...
the problem is what used to be a family farm has been forced to take on more acres/animals and become a factory or industrial farming operation in order to survive.
That's a bit simplistic, Milo.
And let's be clear: this is a government program that brings workers in. I don't believe migrant workers can be brought into the country and work without going through the FARMS program. There are protections for workers in the program, which the union peeps and labour organizers tend not to pay much attention to. There are rules and regs,
Family farm is definitely an abused phrase. I don't think there's any easy definition.
My question was tounge-in-cheek more than anything else. A reflection of the destruction of the family farm that has taken place over several decades.
That just goes to show that they will have to do what workers have always done when told it is illegal to organize. I can only hope they get help from their brothers and sisters when they defy the SCC and unionize anyways. Fuck the courts
Sit Down Sit Down Support your local farm workers when they wild cat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGUCUtCCIhU
As a farmer I have never understood some fellow farmers objection to unionization of farm workers. Realistically no union is likely to organize the 'hired man' on a small or medium sized farm. It just isn't practical. Nor is a union ever going to organize a half dozen employees in any practical scenario. If it were to happen it would be because the condidtions there were truly appalling and they just felt they had no choice but to step in. It is only very large operations that would be even considered in all practicality.
It actually hurts our interests as farmers to allow large corporate operations not to have the same rules and regulations around labour organizing as other similar sized businesses. If my memory is correct in this long drawn out issue, the original case came from a mushroom 'farm' - which was basically a number of big concrete buildings with no windows. That business had several hundred employees who were low paid, had terrible working conditions and had had a number of health and saftey issues. It was hardly Ma and Pa Kettle down on the farm.
In the long run, if farmers can only make a living by cheap labour that has little protection on working conditions and the like than that is a sign of the fundamental failure of agriculture and food policies in Canada- it is not the fault of unions and unjustly protecting large corporations will make the situation worse for family farms (even very large ones) worse - not better.
Bad decision and frankly one that flies in the face of previous labour rulings, which makes it all the more strange.
The decision is at http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01270/Read_the_Supreme_C_1270255a.pdf (from Josh's link above).
Personally, to me this decision just seems like your average weenie narrow bookmark decision not stepping on anyones (ie Parliaments) toes or infringing any future decision-makers. It appears the Court felt no compelling need to wade in here where angels fear to tread since they have relatively recently given us Health Services and Dunmore. They did explicitly read in a requirement for agricultural employers -- or could it be all employers! -- to bargain in good faith, under the existing statute, but if (make that when) that doesn`t work, there doesn`t seem to be anything to stop UFCW or Justicia etc from coming back again later with better evidence on the same issue. Of course this does mean a lot more work and a lot more money to be spent generating paper for the next round -- and that itself could be fatal to the cause.
It could have been a lot worse. They could have reversed the precedents.
They say Harper may gain control of the SCC, with the recent sudden retirement announcements. I wonder if the Court will then be as circumspect when Harper refers back the abortion issue.