Collective bargaining a constitutional right in Canada

[Uraniun235]

link

High court hands B.C. health unions 'huge victory'
High court says collective bargaining a constitutional right
Last Updated: Friday, June 8, 2007 | 1:06 PM ET
CBC News

In a case that pitted B.C. health unions against highly contentious labour legislation, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that the collective bargaining process is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In a 6-1 decision, the high court threw out sections of British Columbia' Bill 29, saying they interfere with that process "either by disregarding past processes of collective bargaining, by pre-emptively undermining future processes of collective bargaining, or both."

The law, passed by Gordon Campbell's Liberal government in 2002, allowed for the tearing up of the B.C. Hospital Employees Union contract and led to the layoff of more than 8,000 unionized health-care workers. Two years later, under Bill 37, the government imposed a 15 per cent pay cut on HEU members.

Union hails ruling as 'huge victory'

"This is a huge victory for both health care and health-care workers because the Supreme Court of Canada said that Bill 29 violates the freedom of association protections in the charter, which cover the right to free collective bargaining," said HEU president Judy Darcy.

"In particular, the Supreme Court said that the denial of the right to negotiate around the issue of contracting-out in health care was unconstitutional," she said.

The ruling gives the government 12 months to renegotiate contracts with the 38,000-member HEU, the largest of the unions fighting the legislation. Darcy said she wants the government to immediately halt a further 600 pending layoffs.

In addition to the section on contracting-out, the court found that provisions in the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act dealing with layoffs and bumping rights also restricted the unions' right to collective bargaining.

The law allowed for contracting-out of non-clinical services previously performed by union members and eased layoff notice provisions. It also prevented health unions from negotiating job security clauses in subsequent contracts.

In 2004, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled against the unions, saying the law does not violate their bargaining rights.

Bill 29 was pushed through the legislature in three days after the government said health-care employers needed more flexibility to cut costs.

The Supreme Court of Canada justices said there was little evidence that the government made any meaningful effort to consult with the unions before bringing in the legislation.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

And?

[Aaron]

So if I understand this correctly, the government can no longer just impose a contract on people?

[Ma Deuce]

What effect would this ruling have on any future attempt to introduce "right to work" legislation? I would definitely support such legislation, since I see forced union membership as a condition of employment to violate the concept of freedom of association, especially since the unions can freely use mandatory membership dues to support causes individual members may not agree with.