Your search
Results 3 resources
-
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.
-
[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 1951, it was obvious to Justice Cornelius O’Halloran, one of the most outspoken members of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (bcca), that picketing was unlawful. According to him, “in a unionized city like Vancouver everybody knows what a picket line means. Many neutral individuals are afraid of patronizing places where labour picketers none too subtly convey by their organized and militant presence and patrol the unspoken threat ‘you better not patronize this place.’” O’Halloran’s statement was made in a judgment that held that two trade unionists who paraded peacefully in front of a restaurant with signs that stated that the restaurant did not have collective agreements with the union were acting illegally. His equation of picketing with coercion was not idiosyncratic. In its first one hundred years, despite several changes in the legal regime governing labour relations in the province and numerous changes in court membership, unions won only eight out of the thirty-eight decisions on the legality of picketing and obtained partial victories in another two. However, the one-sided results obscure the extent of the debate within the bcca, especially in its early years, over whether there was any room at all for lawful picketing as well as over the greater success achieved by unions in cases heard in the post-Charter era. --Introduction
Explore
Resource type
- Journal Article (3)