In Pursuit of Equality: Rethinking the Constitutionalization of Labour Rights after Fraser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the Supreme Court of Canada (“the Court”) released its Ontario (Attorney General) v Fraser (“Fraser”) decision in late April 2011,1 the labour movement had to reevaluate whether a legal strategy of constitutionalizing collective bargaining rights continued to make sense. For most of the twentieth century, courts consistently fettered and punished workplace organizing and militancy, engendering distrust toward the judiciary among trade unionists.2 After the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) in 1982,3 there was some modest optimism that workers’ rights to collectively bargain and strike could find a place within the new Constitution’s listed rights and freedoms. The Court quickly extinguished such hopes in its Labour Trilogy, refusing to read the right to strike or bargain collectively into the ‘freedom of association’ guarantee listed under section 2(d) of the Charter.4 However, within two decades of these decisions the Court shifted gears, with Dunmore v Ontario (Attorney General) (“Dunmore”)5 and Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association v British Columbia (“Health Services”)6 indicating a thawing of judicial antipathy towards labour. After three decades of diminishing membership and reduced political and economic clout, unions and their allies were understandably excited when Canada’s highest court stated that in
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 | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.113 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".