MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1800288480

An Overview of Quebec Back-to-Work Acts Enacted between 1964 and 2001

2002· article· en· W1800288480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
François Delorme, Gaston Nadeau

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureCollective bargainingIntervention (counseling)Work (physics)LegislationIndustrial relationsPolitical scienceService (business)BusinessPublic relationsLaw and economicsPublic administrationSociologyLawEngineeringPsychologyMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors present a detailed account of each of the special acts that ordered people back to work, most of the time, employees according to the definition of the Labour Code (R.S.Q., c. C-27), or that ordered such employees to perform their usual tasks. Between 1964 and 2001, 34 such exceptional acts were adopted. The paper does not take into consideration legislative amendments enacted over the years to modify in a general manner the rules governing collective bargaining relations in the public and para-public sectors as well as within public services.In spite of the quite significant differences between the collective bargaining systems in place in Canada, especially as concerns the right to strike and the concept of essential services, such statistical data is evidence of a tendency to intervene more in the area of industrial relations in comparison with what occurs in other Canadian jurisdictions. A more detailed analysis of the rules in force elsewhere, especially in Ontario (24 special acts) and at the federal level (27 special acts) would explain these differences.As far as the areas affected by this type of legislative intervention are concerned, the data collected indicate that such areas of activity are especially those in which the State is often involved either as an employer or as a financial backer, even though other reasons for this exceptional type of intervention must not be neglected: the necessity of ending violence and the obvious intolerance of citizens deprived of a service that is not deemed essential according to the other legal criteria, are examples of this.From another perspective, the duration of the conflict is far from being in itself a decisive basis for intervention. From this point of view, we were able to establish that for public transit within the Montreal Urban Community, conflicts varying in duration between 2 and 22 days preceded the government’s decision to enact such special legislation. It was also possible to note such a time variation in the area of electrical services supply with strikes lasting from 10 to 22 days.It’s also useful to mention that if the use of such exceptional acts has diminished since the creation of the Conseil des services essentiels in 1982 (20 such acts were adopted between 1964 and 1982 as compared to 14 since 1983), we would be wrong to attribute the reduction in such periodic interventions to the sole existence of the Conseil. Other factors, such as the reduction of the number of work stoppages since 1983 in the public sector as well as the permanent measures provided for by the Act to ensure that essential services are maintained in the health and social services sector (R.S.Q., c. M-1.1) may also account for this phenomenon.Without giving any consideration to the social legitimacy of legislative intervention to terminate a labour conflict - real or apprehended - it must be admitted that the use of a special act in such situations is a sign of the failure of the free collective bargaining process, and that its repeated use runs the risk of undermining the authority of such laws. This instrument of social control involves a problem of public policy in the field of labour relations : how to conciliate certain international commitments, for example, ones made within the framework of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work adopted in 1998, with the use of this unusual manner of conflict settlement, even when essential services are provided to the population?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.020
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→