Management Rights Revisited: How the Good Ship Warrior & Gulf Sailed Up the Potomac River and Wound Up in Metropolitan Toronto

Prior to collective bargaining legislation in Canada and the United States, management's legal obligations to consider the interests of employees was limited only by common law, a small number of statutes affecting the employment relationship, statutes imposing health and safety obligations, workmen's compensation statutes, and the willingness of employees to work under the conditions imposed.'A common philosophical tenet among representatives of management was that matters such as wages, hours and working conditions should be determined by market conditions and that any intervention by government is an unwarranted interference.2 After the adoption of collective bargaining legislation, serious questions arose as to how the new labour statutes might limit management's actions and how they might affect unions and bargaining unit * The Warrior & Gulfof the title is a water transportation company operating as a contract carrier of vessels along southern waterways in the United States.It became famous as a result of a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the scope of arbitral authority and management rights: United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960).The case is associated with two other cases, making up the Steelworker's Trilogy: United Steelworkers v.American Mfg.Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960), and United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960).** The competing philosophies of arbitration considered in the Trilogy cases also were the focus in the Ontario Court of Appeal case of Re Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police and Metropolitan Toronto Police Ass'n et al. 33 Ont.2d 476 (1981).The purpose of this article is to examine the way in which the American doctrine of collective bargaining interpretation has affected Canadian jurisprudence in the same area.While recognizing the differences that exist, I have concluded that similarities have been obscured as a result of the failure to appreciate the more limited meaning of Warrior & Gulf and the more expanded interpretation of which Metro-Police is capable.My conclusions support a philosophy of collective bargaining interpretation which rejects the extreme positions of proponents of the rival philosophies of the reserved rights and implied limitations schools of collective agreement interpretation.*** Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario 1. Warrior & Gulf, 363 U.S. at 583.This statement is also applicable in Canada and is implicit in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Metro-Police, 33 Ont.2d at 478.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.