The Unfulfilled Promise of Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux: A Case Study on the Reconciliation of Equality and Freedom of Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of the protection of collective bargaining rights in Canada has been marked by a tension between freedom of association (section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “the Charter”) and equality (section 15(1) of the Charter). In most cases before the Supreme Court of Canada (“the SCC”), the SCC has examined both rights separately. More recently, the SCC has treated equality as a value (rather than a right), using the value of equality to inform its interpretation of freedom of association. Both these approaches (the “Siloed Approach” and the “Charter Values” approach) fail to fully examine how equality and freedom of association exist bidirectionally. This article uses a 2008 case from the Quebec Superior Court as a case study of how equality can inform our understanding of association and how association can remedy inequality. L’évolution de la protection des droits à la négociation collective au Canada est marquée par une tension entre la liberté d’association (article 2(d) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, « la Charte ») et l’égalité (article 15(1) de la Charte). Dans la plupart des affaires dont elle a été saisie, la Cour suprême du Canada (CSC) a examiné ces deux droits séparément. Récemment, la CSC a traité l’égalité comme une valeur (plutôt que comme un droit), en utilisant la valeur de l’égalité pour éclairer son interprétation de la liberté d’association. Les deux approches (l’approche « soit/soit » et l’approche des « valeurs de la Charte ») ne permettent pas d’examiner pleinement comment l’égalité et la liberté d’association existent de manière bidirectionnelle. Le présent article utilise un jugement rendu en 2008 par la Cour supérieure du Québec comme étude de cas pour montrer comment l’égalité peut éclairer notre compréhension de l’association et comment l’association peut remédier à l’inégalité.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".