ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 371, Mars 2014

Cas no 2654 (Canada) - Date de la plainte: 12-JUIN -08 - Clos

Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol

Go to:

  1. 36. The Committee last examined this case, in which the complainants alleged that the Public Service Essential Services Act (PSESA) and the Trade Union Amendment Act (TUAA) in Saskatchewan impede workers from exercising their fundamental right to freedom of association by making it more difficult for them to join unions, engage in free collective bargaining and exercise their right to strike, at its March 2013 meeting [see 367th Report, paras 28–44]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the appeal by the Government of the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench that the PSESA was unconstitutional and the appeal by the unions in relation to the court’s finding on the constitutionality of the TUAA. The Committee also requested the Government to ensure that the provincial Government take concrete steps to review the PSESA and the TUAA, in full consultation with the social partners concerned, with a view to their amendment in line with its previous recommendations. Finally, it requested the Government and the complainants to provide information on any unfair labour practice applications which might have been filed in this regard, as well as on the results of these procedures.
  2. 37. In a communication dated 20 September 2013, submitted by the Government of Canada, the provincial Government states that since the Government’s last update, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has heard arguments from the parties and on 26 April 2013 rendered a unanimous decision of the five Justices of the Court of Appeal that both PSESA and TUAA are constitutional. It further adds that since the decision of the Court, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. At the time of writing, this application had not yet been considered.
  3. 38. The provincial Government also indicates that it released a consultation paper on 2 May 2013 which provided information on employment and labour relations issues and requested feedback and advice on changes to the 12 pieces of legislation for which the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety is responsible. The Government specifies that the paper was not an exhaustive list of issues, but rather a starting point for a dialogue with interested parties. The decision to undertake this significant legislative review was predicated on the philosophy that Government has a responsibility for ensuring these laws remain current, responsive and relevant to the needs of the people of the province. Some of these 12 pieces of legislation had not been substantively reviewed since the early 1990s, while other pieces have not been reviewed since the 1950s. As a result, the Acts have become outdated and do not reflect today’s work environment. The Government states that its goal was to modernize and simplify the legislation so it is easier to use and understand; to eliminate inconsistencies; to reduce confusion and to clarify which provisions apply in particular situations. As part of these consultations, the Government sought input from the various unions and employers as well as the general public.
  4. 39. The Government further underlines that this first round of consultations consisted of a 90 day period from 2 May to 31 July 2012. During this period, the Government received over 3,800 submissions from interested parties. According to the Government, this was a significant increase in participation of stakeholders and the general public on labour relations and employment-related legislation. The result of these consultations was the introduction of The Saskatchewan Employment Act (Bill 85) on 4 December 2012. With the introduction of Bill 85, the Government commenced a second consultation process that started on the day of introduction and concluded on 1 March 2013. These consultations resulted in 243 additional submissions which helped inform the Government of the unintended consequences of the legislation.
  5. 40. The Government also indicates that in addition to these two phases of consultations, additional dialogue with stakeholders occurred through the Minister’s Advisory Committee on Labour Relations and Workplace Safety which consists of representatives of employers, organized labour and the public interest. From 2 May 2012 to 10 April 2013, the Committee met with the Minister and Government officials on 19 occasions to discuss the existing and proposed legislation. The Government adds that from the submissions received during the second consultation phase and the ongoing dialogue with the Minister’s Advisory Committee the Government introduced 28 House Amendments to Bill 85. It states that the result was legislation that is fair to employees, employers and unions. The Government believes this consultation process has provided ample opportunity for all stakeholders to provide input which has, according to the Government, resulted in fair and balanced legislation.
  6. 41. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government and of the Saskatchewan Court decision relevant to the issues in this case. It further notes the Government’s indication that the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the decision of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan rendered on 26 April 2013 that the PSESA and the TUAA were constitutionally valid. The Committee understands that the appeal of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour has been granted and requests the Government to keep it informed of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in this regard, and of any action taken as a result, taking into account its recommendations concerning the amendments to be made to these Acts.
  7. 42. In the meantime, the Committee also takes note of the Government’s indication that extensive consultations with the relevant social partners took place during the review of the 12 pieces of legislation for which the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety is responsible and that the decision to undertake it was predicated on the philosophy that Government has a responsibility for ensuring these laws remain current, responsive and relevant to the needs of the people of the province. While taking due note of the extensive labour law review, the Committee observes from the draft provided that neither the PSESA nor the TUAA were amended in line with its recommendations given at its March 2010 meeting [see 356th Report, para. 384]. Therefore, the Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that the provincial Government take concrete steps to review the PSESA and the TUAA, in full consultation with the social partners concerned, with a view to their amendments in line with its previous recommendations.
  8. 43. In the absence of any information provided with respect to its recommendation on the establishment of appropriate appeal mechanisms concerning the complainants’ allegations that a very large number of employees working in essential services have been unilaterally designated as “essential workers”, the Committee once again urges the Government to ensure that the provincial Government takes appropriate measures, including through the establishment of appropriate appeal mechanisms which have the confidence of the parties concerned, in order to limit the designation of workers as “essential” to the strict minimum necessary to operate the essential services in case of work stoppage, particularly in respect of trade union officers, in order to ensure that the scope of the minimum service does not result in rendering the strike actions ineffective. The Committee further requests the Government once again to ensure that the provincial Government take steps, in consultation with the social partners concerned, to establish compensatory mechanisms, such as independent and impartial arbitration procedures that are binding on the parties concerned when they are unable to conclude a collective agreement.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer