The State Giveth and Taketh Away: Public Sector Labour Law, the Legitimacy of the Legislative Override Power and Constitutional Freedom of Association in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the role of courts and legislatures in the design and enforcement of labour laws in the context of public sector employment. It does so by focusing on government employers’ legislative ability to temporarily override public sector labour rights, or to displace outcomes achieved under their processes. This issue is analysed through a case study of Canada, a country which offers constitutional protections for freedom of association, but which is also constructing a highly deferential approach to the constitutional review of override statutes. As a result of this deference, governments have been afforded significant leeway in the use and design of override legislation, which serves to undermine the legitimacy of the underlying public sector labour law regime. The result is to shake the confidence of public sector employees in the promise of workplace power redistribution and workplace voice and to undermine the legitimacy of public sector labour law. Because override legislation can so fundamentally undermine public sector labour rights, the courts should avoid excessive deference and instead undertake an active constitutional review of their use, where constitutional protections are available. Judicial Deference; Public Sector Labour Law; Legislative Override; Freedom of Association; section 2(D); The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; The Expenditure Restraint Act, Pre-Legislative Consultation; Legitimacy; Special Interests
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".