Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its ruling in B.C. Health Services, the Supreme Court of Canada relied on Canada's obligations under international law, and specifically ILO law, to hold that s. 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on freedom of association not only protects the right of unions to engage in collective bargaining, but also imposes on employers a duty to bargain. The author is critical of the Court's reasoning in advancing the latter proposition, particularly because Canada has not ratified the ILO convention on collective bargaining and therefore is not bound by its provisions. Moreover, he points out, the central tenet of that convention is that ratifying states are required to encourage voluntary - not compulsory - negotiations between employers and workers. The author goes on to note that Canada, in virtue of its membership in the ILO, is covered by that body's 1998 Declaration, which identifies freedom of association as a core labour right, and also can be the subject of a complaint before the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA). However, he explains, neither the Declaration nor the CFA procedure results in conventions being binding on non-ratifying states. Furthermore, the Declaration's purpose is merely to promote key principles, such as freedom of association; while the CFA is not a judicial body, and its decisions are considered neither binding nor authoritative. In the result, the Supreme Court, partly as a consequence of its misreading of Canada's international law obligations, has constitutionalized a particular model of labour relations - one that is peculiar to North America, even though that model is only one of many ways in which the international law norm of freedom of association can be instantiated and made enforceable. Ultimately, the author concludes, the problem with B.C. Health Services, as with earlier decisions, lies in the Court's refusal to apply the Charter guarantee of equality under s. 15, thus forcing s. 2(d) to do a job for which it is not suited.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".