Woman making a frame around the sun with her hands at sunrise
Woman making a frame around the sun with her hands at sunrise
Woman making a frame around the sun with her hands at sunrise

28 Years Later: Constitutional Right to Strike Confirmed by Supreme Court

February 2015 Employment and Labour Bulletin 2 minutes read

Nearly 28 years after former Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote passionate – yet dissenting – reasons in favour of extending constitutional protection to the right to strike, the Supreme Court of Canada has taken up his call. In Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan,[1] the Supreme Court has held that the right to strike is an essential component of the freedom of association guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter“).

Background

At issue before the Court was whether legislation prohibiting designated employees from participating in strike action amounted to a substantial interference with their right to participate in meaningful collective bargaining. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider the constitutionality of two statutes:

  1. The Public Service Essential Services Act (“PSESA“), which imposed narrow limits on the ability of public sector employees who perform “essential services” to strike; and
  2. The Trade Union Amendment Act, 2008 (“TUAA“), which imposed changes to the union certification process and the rules regarding communications between employers and employees.

The PSESA gave public employers unilateral authority to determine whether and how essential services are to be maintained and therefore which employees could not strike. In the view of Court, the PSESA did not provide for an acceptable review mechanism or a meaningful dispute resolution mechanism.

The Right to Strike

A majority of the Court found that the PSESA was unconstitutional and that the ability of employees to take strike action played a crucial role in meaningful collective bargaining. The majority also found that the right to strike helped balance the “deep inequalities” that exist between employers and employees. The Court held that the right to strike is protected under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The majority also confirmed that the broad restrictions in the PSESA were neither minimally impairing nor proportionate and went beyond what is reasonably necessary in order to ensure the delivery of essential services to the community during labour disputes.

Regarding the TUAA, however, the Court held that introducing amendments to the process by which unions obtain and/or lose bargaining representative status did not substantially interfere with the freedom of association.

Remaining Questions

The largest question that remains from this decision was raised by Justices Rothstein and Wagner in their dissent: what is the scope of this new constitutional right to strike? Is this new right only available to public employees and unionized members of the private sector? Will governments now have to rationalize existing statutory limits on the right to strike?

We will be following the impact of this decision closely as legislatures and employers alike pivot to rebalance the scales of the Canadian labour ecosystem.

by Paul Boshyk and Tyson Gratton

1 2015 SCC4.

A Cautionary Note 

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2015

Related Publications (5 Posts)

Featured Insight

Watch as that Trust is Swept Away

Suppliers and subcontractors in the construction industry should be mindful of a recent unreported decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Read More
Jul 30, 2021
Featured Insight

The CSA Comes Full Circle to Protect the Vulnerable

Amended regulations by the CSA for registrants to protect older and vulnerable clients.

Read More
Jul 27, 2021
Featured Insight

The Ontario Court of Appeal Expands the Range of Damages under the Family Law Act for Loss of Care, Guidance, and Companionship

The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently upheld a non-pecuniary damage award from a jury exceeding its previous guidance.

Read More
Jul 27, 2021
Featured Insight

Amended Sanctions by the U.S. Regarding Investments in Certain Companies in China

An Executive Order prohibiting U.S. persons from purchasing securities of certain Chinese Military-Industrial Complex companies becomes effective August 2, 2021

Read More
Jul 26, 2021
Featured Insight

SOFR Fundamentals: What We Know SO-FAR

SOFR is the preferred USD alternative RFR to LIBOR. We discuss what SOFR is, the types of SOFR, conventions for SOFR, and using SOFR in loan agreements.

Read More
Jul 21, 2021