Your search

Drawing on feminist labour law and political economy literature, I argue that it is crucial to interrogate the personal and territorial scope of labour. After discussing the “commodification” of care, global care chains, and body work, I claim that the territorial scope of labour law must be expanded beyond that nation state to include transnational processes. I use the idea of social reproduction both to illustrate and to examine some of the recurring regulatory dilemmas that plague labour markets. I argue that unpaid care and domestic work performed in the household, typically by women, troubles the personal scope of labour law. I use the example of this specific type of personal service relation to illustrate my claim that the jurisdiction of labour law is historical and contingent, rather than conceptual and universal. I conclude by identifying some of the implications of redrawing the territorial and personal scope of labour law in light of feminist understandings of social reproduction.

The scope of labour rights that are protected by constitutional protections of freedom of association is highly contested and, increasingly, is being litigated before courts. In Canada, the Supreme Court began in 2001 to chip away at jurisprudence that provided a narrow interpretation of freedom of association, and, in 2007, it over-ruled precedent to hold that freedom of association includes collective bargaining. However, this incremental expansion of the freedom of association to include core labour rights came to a halt in the Supreme Court's April 2011 decision Attorney General of Ontario v Fraser. Although a majority of the Court agreed that freedom of association includes collective bargaining, Fraser is remarkable for the extent of disagreement amongst members of the Court over the scope of collective bargaining and how this disagreement has influenced the tone and cogency of the Court's reasoning. This article begins by providing a history of the successive rounds of litigation leading to the Supreme Court's decision in Fraser. This legal context is important because it is barely visible in the majority and concurring judgments, which read as if collective bargaining rights for agricultural workers were a subsidiary concern, and not the issue in dispute. The article then examines the four judgments that make up the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Fraser, focusing exclusively on the freedom of association arguments. The implications of the Fraser decision for the immediate future of constitutional litigation and labour rights in Canada are discussed in the final section.

In June 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly overruled 20 years of jurisprudence that interpreted the freedom of association as excluding collective bargaining. This about-face by the Supreme Court was unexpected. What gave rise to this remarkable decision and what does it portend for the role of the courts in labour relations in Canada and beyond? The recent successes before courts have led some observers to suggest that it may now be a propitious time for a coordinated and proactive litigation strategy to vindicate labour's collective rights. This article offers some preliminary answers to these broader questions and issues by focussing on the Supreme Court's decision in the Health Services and Support case.

This article sketches the rise and fall of industrial citizenship in Canada, and presents two very different models of citizenship that might replace it. It begins by defining the concept of citizenship, and explaining how industrial citizenship has conventionally been understood. It then traces the genealogy of industrial citizenship in Canadian labour law, and how the processes of feminization, deregulation, and globalization have challenged it as a normative ideal and undermined the conditions that have sustained it. The article concludes by considering two scenarios for industrial citizenship in the future: one in which the substance of citizenship is circumscribed by an emphasis on the market, and the other in which citizenship is extended beyond employment to work.

The article reviews the book, "Combination and Conspiracy: A Legal History of Trade Unionism 1821-1906" by John V. Orth.

This article reviews the book, "Daunting Enterprise of the Law: Essays in Honour of Harry W. Arthurs," edited by Simon Archer, Daniel Drache and Peer Zumbansen.

The article reviews and comments on the books, "Contemporary Slavery: Popular Rhetoric and Political Practice," edited by Annie Bunting and Joel Quirk, "Modern Slavery: The Margins of Freedom," by Julia O'Connell Davidson, and "The Poverty of Work: Selling Servant, Slave and Temporary Labor on the Free Market," by David Van Arsdale.

In Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association v. British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned precedent and concluded “that the grounds advanced in the earlier decisions for the exclusion of collective bargaining from the Charter’s protection of freedom of association do not withstand principled scrutiny and should be rejected” (at para. 22). The author explores the Supreme Court of Canada’s change of heart and what this change implies, not only for constitutional doctrine, but also for what the Court understands about the governance of the postFordist world of work. She situates the Court’s reasoning in a few key cases dealing with labour’s distinctive rights – to bargain collectively and to strike – in the social context that both shapes the legal discourse about labour rights and influences organized labour’s power. She considers the paradox of the Supreme Court’s embrace of Fordist labour rights in a post-Fordist economy, and suggests a modest, though important, role that the Court could play in fostering social justice in the brave new world of work.

Discusses the socio-political context of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's ruling regarding the pay equity complaint of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The complaint was upheld, but the federal government filed an appeal. Argues for a new understanding of the labour market to counter the devisiveness of the prevailing neo-classical model.

The article reviews the book, "Employment dispute resolution and worker rights in the changing workplace," edited by Adrienne E. Eaton and Jeffrey H. Keefe.

The article reviews the book, "Labor Law and Business Change: Theoretical and Transactional Perspectives," by Samuel Estreicher and Daniel G. Collins.

Self-employed workers have an legal ambiguous status. Traditionally self-employment is equated with entrepreneurship and legally it is considered to be a form of independent contracting and thus outside the ambit of labour protection and collective bargaining laws. But the evidence suggests that most of the self-employed, especially those who do not employ other workers, are much more like employees than they are like entrepreneurs. Instead of attempting to draw a new line between employment and independent contracting for the purpose of determining the scope of labour protection, collective bargaining, and social insurance laws, all workers, including the self-employed, who depend on the sale of their capacity to work should be covered by these laws, unless there are compelling public policy reasons for a narrower definition.

Disputes over the meaning of human trafficking, forced labour and modern slavery have both provoked and coincided with a reinvigorated debate in academic and policy literatures about how to conceptualise unfree labour. This article traces the contours of the debate over free and unfree labour, identifying its key stakes as the debate has developed and paying particular attention to recent interventions. It begins by identifying a problem common to both canonical liberal and Marxian approaches to the free/unfree labour distinction, which is to fetishise the labour market. It then discusses the consensus that is emerging across disciplines and in leading international organisations that labour unfreedom in contemporary capitalism is best conceptualised as a continuum rather than a binary, highlighting recent disciplinary-specific contributions. It argues that the metaphor of a continuum of labour unfreedom obscures more than it illuminates. Drawing upon the growing body of literature that advocates a multifaceted approach to labour unfreedom, this article argues that a robust concept of local labour control regime does a much better job of capturing the complex mix of consent and coercion involved in extracting value from labour power than the idea of a continuum of labour unfreedom.

[F]ocuses on the legal regime that regulates the entry and exit of low-skilled temporary foreign workers and these workers' rights and terms and conditions of employment while in Canada. ...We are also interested in beginning to explore the impact of this program in relation to the Canadian labor market. In order to understand the distinctive features and effects of the low-skilled temporary foreign workers program, we situate the low-skilled TFWP in the context of the emergence and development of Canada's general TFWP.

In 1947. Bora Laskin, the doyen of Canadian collective bargaining law, remarked that "Labour relations as a matter for legal study … has outgrown any confinement to a section of the law of torts or to a corner of the criminal law. Similarly, and from another standpoint, it has burst the narrow bounds of master and servant." That standpoint was liberal pluralism, which comprises collective bargaining legislation administered by independent labour boards and a System of grievance arbitration to enforce collective agreements. After World War II, it came to dominate our understanding of labour relations law such that, according to Laskin, reference to "pre-collective bargaining standards is an attempt to re-enter a world that has ceased to exist." But this picture is only partially true. Instead of replacing earlier regimes of industrial legality, industrial pluralism was grafted on to them. Moreover, it only encompassed a narrow, albeit crucial, segment of workers; in the mid-1950s "the typical union member was a relatively settled, semi-skilled male worker within a large industrial corporation." More than 65 per cent of Canadian workers at that time, a large proportion of whom were women and recent immigrants, fell outside the regime. This paper broadens the focus from collective bargaining law to include other forms of the legal regulation of employment relations, such as the common law, minimum standards, and equity legislation. In doing so, it examines the extent to which liberal pluralism regime was implicated in constructing and reinforcing a deeply segmented labour market in Canada. It also probes whether the recent assault on trade union rights may be the trajectory for the reconstruction of a new regime of employment relations.

At the turn of the century, the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of the Canadian state responded to the labour conflicts associated with the second industrial revolution by simultaneously expanding both their coercive and their facilitative roles. This paper examines one aspect of this development, the rise of the labour injunction, through a study of a series of strikes conducted chiefly by metal workers in south central Ontario between 1900 and 1914. In addition to retrieving the largely forgotten genealogy of a body of law that continues to play an important role in regulating and containing trade union activity, the study contributes insights into debates raging among labour historians regarding the role and significance of state institutions and public discourse in determining the trajectory and fate of organized labour.

This paper looks at the “deep roots” of striking as a social practice in Canada, by providing an analytic framework for approaching the history of the right to strike, and then sketching the contours of that history. Focusing on the three key worker freedoms — to associate, to bargain collectively, and to strike — the authors trace the jural relations between workers, employers and the state through four successive regimes of industrial legality in Canada: master and servant; liberal voluntarism; industrial voluntarism; and industrial pluralism, the latter marked by the adoption of the Wagner Act model. On the basis of their review of those regimes, the authors argue that long before the modern scheme, workers enjoyed a virtually unlimited freedom to strike for collective bargaining purposes. Although government-imposed restrictions on the freedom have increased significantly, especially under industrial pluralism, legislatures have typically provided workers with compensating trade-offs, including rights enforceable against their employers. However, in contrast to the historical pattern, public-sector workers have with growing frequency been subjected to “exceptionalism,” i.e. the suspension or limitation of freedoms without a grant of compensatory rights. In the authors’ view, it is the imposition of such measures that will likely provide the context for consideration of whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to strike.

Using gender as its analytic lens, this article examines segmentation in the Canadian labour market by focusing on the standard employment relationship. It illustrates how standard employment was crafted upon a specific gender division of paid and unpaid labour, the male breadwinner norm, and was only available to a narrow segment of workers. To this end, it traces how from the lOSO's the standard employment relationship was supplemented by a growth in jobs associated with, and filled primarily by, women workers and it shows how women's increasing labour market participation in the late 1960s and early 1970s shaped demands for equality in employment policies. Since the 1980s, a deterioration in the standard employment relationship has undermined both demands for and the basis of gender equality strategies and the article concludes by raising the question of the normative basis for regulating employment in order to move towards strategies for reregulation.