Bibliographic record
Abstract
FOCUS □ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING The right to bargain in a non-majority situation Workers majority pursue have their unions a interests human and right if through they to form choose them nonto to majority unions and throughthemto pursuetheirinterests iftheychoose to do that. Thisis notincompatible withan industrial relations system that makesuse ofmajoritarian exclusivity. In factthe ILO's Committee on Freedomof Association ('CFA') whose jurisprudenceon workers' humanrights is cherished by trade unionistsaround the globe, recognises majoritarian exclusivity as an option. Unfortunately, ChiefJusticeWinklerin the Fraserdecisionreferred to by Clancyordered Ontario tointroduce legislation that would"eradicate the possibility of irreconcilable demands from multiple employee representatives, purportingtosimultaneously represent employees inthe sameworkplace withsimilar job functions." My concernis thatthe Winklerdecision,if it is allowedtostandbytheCanadianSupreme Court, wouldcreatea legalstandard requiring governments tosuppress therights ofworkers toorganise in anyformat otherthanmajoritarian exclusivity . ThatwouldplaceCanadasquarely against theinternational humanrights consensusregardingworker rights. In itsmostrecent DigestofDecisions,theCFA hadthistosayaboutmajoritarianism: Withregardtoa provision thatstipulates thata collective agreement maybe negotiated onlybya tradeunionrepresenting an absolutemajority oftheworkers in an enterprise , theCommittee considered thatthe provisiondoesnotpromote collective bargaining in thesenseofArticle 4 ofConvention No. 9821 and itinvited thegovernment totake steps, in consultation withtheorganisations concerned, toamendthe provision in questionso as toensurethatwhenno trade unionrepresents theabsolutemajority ofthe workers, theorganisations mayjointlynegotiatea collective agreement applicabletothe enterprise orthebargainingunit,orat least concludea collective agreement on behalf of their members'. (FreedomofAssociation: Digestofdecisions and principles oftheFreedom ofAssociation Committee oftheGoverning BodyoftheILO, Fifth (revised)edition (Geneva:International LabourOffice, 2006),atpara.978.) As thingsnow standin Canada, the statutory rights of unionswithmajority supportare clear whiletheconstitutional rights of'mostrepresentative 'and 'members only'unionsare currently beingworkedoutbythecourts. Certified exclusive agentunionshave a right to bargainand their employers have a dutyto bargainin good faith withthem. Shouldnegotiations fail, certified exclusiveagentunionshave a right to strike or, forcertain publicsectorunions, a right tosubmit thedisputeto independent binding arbitration. Unionswithless thanmajority support havea right to existbut theirrights to bargainand to strike are unsettled. Should the Canadian SupremeCourtcontinue to relyon international lawtointerpret theFreedom ofAssociation clause intheCharter ofRights and Freedoms, therights of workersto bargainand to strikein a nonmajority format willbe established and governmentswillfulfil their responsibility to effectively protect thoserights. Shouldthat happenI suspect thatlikeJudyAtkinsand David Cohen,many tradeunionists willwelcomethat development. RoyAdams responds to James Clancy's concerns around his supportfor minority union rights PROFESSOR ROY ADAMS is an author, columnist, human rights activist and academic based in Hamilton Page 15Volume 17Issue 42010 INTERNATIONAL union rights Thebenefits ofcertification InCanada, certification asanexclusive agent provides trade unionists with strong legal supports that arethe envy of their brothers andsisters inmany nations. Itmakes good and obvious sense for James Clancy and other Canadian labour leaders tofully support the continued availability of those supports. ...
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.005 |
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".