The Consequences of the Supreme Court of Canada's Approach to the Exclusive Jurisdiction of Labour Arbitrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project intends to examine the approach the Supreme Court of Canada has taken to articulating the jurisdiction of labour arbitrators, and how its expansive framing of exclusive jurisdiction in the labour arbitration context limits access to justice for unionized workers. To set context, the project will outline the Supreme Court's series of decisions expanding the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators, beginning with St. Anne Nackawic in 1986 and Weber in 1995, and more recently culminating in Horrocks in 2021, emphasizing the scope of rights and interests that unionized workers lose the ability to protect if their unions opt to not pursue a grievance. Building on the jurisprudential background, the project will then combine data relating to the disposition of duty of fair representation proceedings in various Canadian jurisdictions with qualitative discussion surrounding the relatively low bar unions must clear to demonstrate that they met their duty of fair representation, suggesting that the duty of fair representation is not much of a safeguard in cases where unions opt to not take up members' grievances. Finally, through an access to justice lens, this project will discuss the wider public policy implications of some unionized workers essentially being denied an avenue to assert highly individual rights, such as the right to be free from discrimination.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| 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 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".