Your search

In authors or contributors
Resource type
  • This paper examines the origins of Canada's labour policy during the first years of this century. It explains why the Canadian government rejected arbitration as the chief means of settling labour disputes, adopting conciliation instead. This choice lies at the foundation of Canadian labour law: governments since that time have sought to dampen industrial conflict by pushing the parties to compromise; they have generally balked at imposing specific terms of employment. The argument proceeds in three stages. It first reviews the formation of Canadian labour policy during the years 1900 to 1907. It then identifies the specific reasons for the government's rejection of arbitration. Finally, it suggests structural characteristics of the Canadian political economy which favoured the choice of conciliation over arbitration.

  • During World War II, the government of Canada sought to prevent strikes primarily through the use of "compulsory conciliation:" in specified industries, strikes and lockouts were prohibited until a government-sponsored board had investigated the dispute and delivered its report. This paper examines the operation of that regime during the war years. It highlights the tension between two alternative views of the boards' function (adjudication and mediation), indicates how the government manipulated the conciliation process in order to prevent or delay strikes, discusses briefly the reasons invoked by boards in their judgements, and demonstrates the frustration arising from the government's reluctance to prescribe clear norms of industrial conduct. In the turbulent wartime economy, compulsory conciliation failed to achieve the level of industrial peace demanded of it. Eventually, mandatory wage controls and a labour code modeled on the American Wagner Act were adopted, restricting the scope of the conciliation regime.

Last update from database: 5/3/25, 4:10 AM (UTC)