La syndicalisation des courriers des routes rurales (The Unionization of Rural Postal Couriers)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Une disposition de la Loi sur les Postes empeche les courriers des routes rurales de se syndiquer. Cette interdiction ne devrait plus exister, pour deux raisons principales : d’une part, l’interpretation que donne la Cour federale de cette disposition est critiquable. D’autre part, depuis l’arret Dunmore, on peut envisager qu’une telle interdiction pourrait etre declaree inconstitutionnelle. En effet, dans L’arret Dunmore, l’exclusion des travailleurs agricoles du regime des relations de travail en vertu de la Loi sur les relations de travail de l’Ontario a ete jugee inconstitutionnelle. La Cour supreme du Canada n’a pas ete jusqu’a reconnaitre le droit a la negociation collective comme etant protege par l’alinea 2(d) de la Charte. Pour la premiere fois, cependant, elle reconnaissait le devoir de l’Etat de proteger des travailleurs vulnerables contre l’ingerence des employeurs dans la constitution d’une association visant a defendre les interets communs des travailleurs. English Abstract: A provision of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits unionization by rural postal couriers. This prohibition should come to an end for two main reasons:first, the Federal Court's interpretation of this provision is disputable. Secondly, since the Dunmore decision, it is foreseeable that this prohibition could be held unconstitutional. Indeed, in Dunmore, the exclusion of agricultural workers from the labour relations regime set out in the Labour Relations Act has been found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada did not go so far as to state that the right of collective bargaining is protected under subsection 2(d) of the Charter. However, the Court recognizes for the first time that a state has the duty to protect vulnerable workers from employers' interference with their right to organize in order to ensure that the common interests of workers are respected.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".