A (Muted) Voice at Work? Collective Bargaining in the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines recent Canadian jurisprudence on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, focusing in particular on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Fraser v Ontario. The article argues that the right to collective bargaining is not in fact protected by the majority speech in Fraser because of a failure to grasp what collective bargaining actually is (especially as defined in international labour standards). The second part of the article examines the dissenting view in Fraser, which draws heavily on the work of Brian Langille, a Canadian labour law professor. That view defends a ‘thin’ conception of freedom of association that would exclude a right to collective bargaining on three grounds: that exclusion respects the Hohfledian distinction between ‘rights’ and ‘liberties’; that freedom of association should be understood as an individual rather than a group right; and that it violates neutrality to identify collective bargaining as an activity of special constitutional importance in freedom of association. The article engages critically with those arguments, and defends an alternative ‘thick’ conception of freedom of association that encompasses a fundamental right to collective bargaining.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".