Bibliographic record
Abstract
REPORT□ COLLECTIVEBARGAINING Canada: Report on the Fraser decision TheAEPA ostensibly protects agricultural workers'right to organise.,and the right to merelymake representations to theiremployer withthe only corresponding obligationthatthe employerread or listento the representations VEENA VERMA isalabour lawyer living in Montreal and Board member of the Canadian Foundation for Labour Rights (CFLR) A workers' Canada recent decision has collective theCourt from bargaining dancing theSupreme the rights: tango Court with one of CanadahastheCourt dancing thetango with workers' collectivebargaining rights: one stepforward, twostepsbackwards. On April29, 2011,theCourt released thelongawaited decision inOntario (Attorney General)v. Fraser, 2011SCC 20 curtailing thedefinition ofcollective bargainingrights inCanada.James Clancy andRoyAdams recently debatedtheimplications ofthecase on minority unions'rights inCanadainIUR(17.44). In additionto thisquestion,thedecisionis significant in defining thescope ofcollectivebargaining rights within theambit ofthefreedom of association provision inCanada'sconstitution, the Charter ofRights andFreedoms. Thiscase dealswiththeexclusionofapproximately 80,000 agricultural workers from theOntario LabourRelationsAct("LRA")and theconstitutionality oftheAgricultural Employees Protection Act("AEPA"), whichpurports tocreatea separate regime for protecting agricultural workers toorganisein "employees' associations" andmake"representations " totheir employer. Notably, there isno mention intheAEPAto"trade unions"or"collective bargaining".The Courtupheld previous jurisprudence finding thatcollectivebargaining rights areprotected undertheconstitution. But,it provided an unworkable and restrictive interpretation oftheserights, ultimately ruling thatitwas constitutional todeny agricultural workers thesame collective bargaining rights asenjoyed bythemajority ofworkers inOntario. One Step Forward Inorder tounderstand thefull import oftheFraser decision, itisnecessary totrace theSupreme Court's treatment ofcollective bargaining rights sincethe adoption oftheCanadian Charter in1982.Thefirst cases dealingsquarely withtheissueofwhether collective bargaining isprotected under theCharter werea group ofthree concurrently released appeals now knownas thelabour"trilogy": Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act(Alta.), [1987] 1S.C.R. 313("Alberta Reference"), PSACv.Canada, [1987]1 S.C.R.424,andRWDSUv. Saskatchewan, [1987]1 S.C.R.460. In theseearlydecisions, the majority viewintheSupreme Court ofCanadawas that freedom ofassociation didnotextend tocollective bargaining. Central tothisanalysis was the opinionthatfreedom ofassociation coversonly activities performable byan individual, andsince an individual cannotperform collective bargaining ,thencollective bargaining is notcovered. TheCourt begantoshift itstreatment ofcollective bargaining rightsin Dunmorev. Ontario (Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R.1016.Thiscase istheprecursor toFraser inwhich theUnited Food and Commercial Workers Canada ("UFCW")first challenged theexclusionofagricultural workers from theLRA. TheCourt retreated from thelabour trilogy analysis and embraced theviewthat there may be activities that arecollective innature deservingprotection underfreedom ofassociation. The Court heldatpara.17:"[T]he law mustrecognise that certain unionactivities - making collective representations to an employer, adopting a majority political platform, federating withother unionsmay becentral tofreedom ofassociation eventhough they areinconceivable ontheindividual level." TheCourt found that thegovernment interfered with farm workers' freedom ofassociation because thelackoflegislative protection as enjoyedbyall other workers inOntario hada "chilling effect" on their ability toorganise inan employees' association .Farmworkers are so vulnerable and disadvantaged that itwasimpossible for them toorganiseina meaningful waytoachieve workplace goals. Therefore, itwas appropriate heretorecognise a positive stateobligation toextendprotective legislation overtheir efforts toorganise inan associationandtomakerepresentations totheir employer .However, theCourt stopped short ofrecognising that freedom ofassociation included collective bargaining rights. Whilethelabourcommunity initially heralded the Dunmorecase as a victory, a closer read revealedan unworkable distinction betweenthe right tojoina unionandtheright tocollective bargaining .The absurdity of thisdistinction was demonstrated bytheOntario government's response tothedecision, which wastoenacttheAEPA. The AEPAostensibly protects agricultural workers' right toorganise inan employees' association, andthe rightto merelymake representations to their employer withtheonlycorresponding obligation that theemployer readorlisten totherepresentations .UndertheAEPA,theUFCWattempted to bargain collectively on behalf offarm employees, but employerssaid thatthecompanywas not requiredto bargainwiththeunion.The UFCW thenlauncheda constitutional challengeofthe AEPAthat is thesubject oftheFraser decision. In Fraser, theUFCWarguedthatitwas unconstitutional to denyagricultural workers collective bargaining rights as enjoyedbythemajority ofall other workers intheprovince under theLRA. This includes:1) a statutory dutyon theemployer to bargain ingoodfaith; 2) precluding theformation ofmultiple employees' associations within a single workplace(i.e. recognition oftheprinciples of majoritarian exclusivity), and 3) a disputeresolutionmechanism for resolving bargaining impasses. Thelimitations ofDunmore soonbecameapparentwhenthecourt atthetrial leveldismissed the Fraser casebyfinding that Dunmore didnotopen thedoorfor constitutionalising collective bargainingrights . INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 24Volume 18Issue 22011 REPORT□ COLLECTIVEBARGAINING The SupremeCourtof Canada subsequently releasedtheseminalcase ofHealthServices and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn.v. British Columbia, [2007] 2S.C.R. 391("B.C.Health") marking a sea changeintheCourt's treatment of collective bargaining rights. Inthis case,health sector unionssquarely asserted that freedom ofassociation protected a right to collective bargaining (as opposedto associational protections seen in Dunmore) which theBritish Columbia government hadviolated bylegislating tobothoverturn existingcontracts andpreclude effective collective bargaining inthefuture. Reviewing Canada...
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".