Definitive Report - Report No 230, November 1983

Case No 1171 (Canada) - Complaint date: 25-NOV-82 - Closed

1. 114. Several occupational organisations representing public servants in Quebec lodged complaints concerning the violation of trade union rights in that province. Such complaints were made by means of communications dated 25 November 1982 and 8 February 1983 from the Federation of Associations of University Lecturers, of 26 November 1982 and 17 February 1983 from the Union of Government Salaried Staff, of 13 December 1982 from the Quebec Provincial Civil Service Union, of 14 February 1983 from the Union of University Employees, of 15 February 1983 from the Federation of Nursing Occupation Unions and of 8 April 1983 from the Quebec Central Teachers' Union. Furthermore the International Federation of Teachers' Unions (IFTU) associated itself with these complaints in communications dated 31 January, 2 and 17 February 1983, as did the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) in communications dated 28 February, 6 March and 15 April 1983 and the World Confederation of Organizations of the Teaching Profession in communications dated 31 March and 3 May 1983. The Government submitted its observations in a communication dated 11 October 1983.
2. 115. Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), 1948; it has not ratified either the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98), 1949, or the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention (No. 151), 1978.

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 116. In their original communications of November 1982 the occupational organisations representing public servants in Quebec alleged that Provincial Act No. 70 concerning remuneration in the public sector, which came into force on 23 June 1982, constituted a serious breach of trade union rights and it requested that the Committee on Freedom of Association recommend to the Government that it repeal that law.
2. 117. In describing the legal framework of collective labour relations in Quebec, the complainants explain that the Labour Code covers both the public and private sectors, and that the general collective bargaining system is based on the recognition of a monopoly of trade union representation in the hands of the organisation to which are affiliated the absolute majority of salaried employees, known as the "bargaining unit", and that collective bargaining effected between an employer and a bargaining unit is exempt from any external intervention. The Quebec Provincial Civil Service Union, for its part, states that it is signatory to two collective agreements: one for administrative staff and the other for salaried employees. The other complainants state that they too freely signed collective agreements with their employers within the framework of the Labour Code.
3. 118. The complainants also point out that strikes and lock-outs are legitimate means of exerting pressure in order to achieve the conclusion or renewal of a collective agreement, and that the exercise of these means of exerting pressure is prohibited during the currency of a collective agreement (sections 107 and 109 of the Code) and that any grievance concerning the interpretation or application of a collective agreement shall be submitted to arbitration (section 100 of the Code). The complainants explain therefore that the parties to a collective agreement cannot in any way unilaterally release themselves from the obligations under it.
4. 119. In the present case, they denounce the fact that Act No. 70 proclaims that the Government's financial policy requirements take presidence over freely concluded collective agreements and provides for the withdrawal of advantages (specifically wage increases) freely obtained by collective bargaining.
5. 120. The documentation enclosed by the complainants in fact shows that, as far as public servants and those in the educational, social affairs and government administration sectors are concerned, any collective agreement which was in effect on 26 May 1982 and which was to expire by 31 December 1982 remained in effect until 1 April 1983 despite the termination dates stipulated therein (section 3 of Act No. 70) and that, in so far as universities and private teaching establishments which receive subsidies are concerned, the parties to a collective agreement in effect on 26 May 1982 had, within 15 days of the date when the Act came into effect (i.e. as from 23 June 1982), to undertake - and to conduct in good faith - negotiations in order to reach agreement on a three-month extension of that collective agreement and to provide for amendments which would allow for a future cut in costs (section 8 of Act No. 70).
6. 121. In addition, Act No. 70 provides that the fixing of remuneration to be drawn by state-employed salaried staff as from 1 April 1983 is to be set in sessional document No. 350 dated 26 March 1982, lodged with the Quebec National Assembly (section 4 of Act No. 70). What this really means, according to the complainants, is that the State will entirely recuperate, over a period of three months, the wage increases obtained as from 1 July 1982 by means of collective bargaining. This recuperation implies a salary loss in the order of 18.85 per cent spread over the three month extension of the collective agreements. The complainants explain that remuneration drawn as from 1 April 1983 will be equal to that applicable in June 1982, before the increase obtained by collective bargaining on 1 July 1982. Hence, as from 1 April 1983 these salaries would be back to their June 1982 level.
7. 122. As far as the remuneration of the salaried employees of universities and private educational institutions receiving subsidies is concerned, the Government may set the figures by decree (section 11 of Act No. 70) should no agreement be reached.
8. 123. The complainants have communicated a number of decrees relating to the application of Act No. 70 which were adopted on 30 November 1982 and which result in a salary reduction for the parties concerned, comparable to that described above, i.e. 18.85 per cent between 1 January and 30 March 1983. These decrees state that, pursuant to Act No. 70, the employer has informed the relevant Minister of the fact that no agreement can be reached and that the Government, considering that no agreement could be reached between the parties, has decreed a salary reduction.
9. 124. The complainants also mention that the three-month extension of collective agreements from 31 December 1982 to 31 March 1983 results in the parties concerned being forbidden to exercise the right to strike pursuant to section 107 of the Labour Code.
10. 125. The complainants further state that Act No. 70 is an act of anti-trade union discrimination in so far as employment policy is concerned, as it affects those workers who had decided to join forces within an association of salaried employees in order collectively to negotiate their working conditions. This Act is contrary to Article 4 of Convention No. 98 and Article 3 of Convention No. 87, as its limits the right of trade unions to seek an improvement in the living and working conditions of those whom they represent and forbids strike action for the three-month extension of collective agreements, hence depriving salaried employees of a legitimate means of defending their professional interests.
11. 126. In subsequent communications, sent during February 1983, the complainants state that the Quebec National Assembly, on 11 December 1982, published Art No. 105 accompanied by sessional document No. 650 dated 9 December 1982 which attenuate the effect of Act No. 70 with respect to lower paid salaried employees. However, the Quebec Federation of Associations of University Lecturers states that as far as the salaried employees represented by the complainant unions are concerned, only a limited number of members, that is to say less than 1 per cent of the Federation's membership, benefit from the adjustment. According to the complainants, although the salary adjustment resulting from the application of Act No. 105 does produce a percentage drop in the loss of salary during the extension period of the collective agreements in question, the fact none the less remains that the reduction decreed by law and aimed at wholly or partially recuperating the salary increase granted during collective bargaining is a violation of Convention No.
12. 127. Furthermore several international trade union organisations, i.e. the IFTU, the WCOTP and the WCL, lodged complaints against special Act No. 111, repressing the teachers' strike of 26 January 1983, which was called in protest against the reduction in salaries, increased workload and staff reductions. According to the WCOTP, a lower court had, in fact, declared Act No. 105 unconstitutional and the Government had appealed against the decision and responded to the teachers' strike by adopting Act No. 111 which called for a return to work by the teachers by 17 February 1983. Furthermore, according to the WCOTP, 6,000 teachers were summoned to appear in court.
13. 128. These three complainant trade union organisations claim that Act No. 111 suspends not only the workers' rights, but also the application of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian Declaration of Human Rights. They state that, in particular, it suspends the right to strike and legal guarantees and that it forbids resignation up to 31 December 1985. The new law also provides that strike action would result in a reduction of two days' salary for one day's strike, the dismissal of strike pickets, the doubling of the fines stipulated in the Labour Code, and furthermore it authorises the Council of Ministers to decree other repressive measures, i.e. loss of three years' seniority for each day's strike, suppression of the right to have compulsory trade union dues deducted during six months for each day's strike, cancellation of time off to attend to union business for trade union leaders during six months for each day's strike, possibility for the Government itself to dismiss teachers if the local councils refuse so to do and decertification for trade unions.
14. 129. As the object of this Act was to force teachers in the public sector back to work, Quebec teachers apparently voted, on 20 February 1983, to call a truce and suspend the strike for three weeks in the hope that new collective agreements could be reached, and the Government and trade unions appointed conciliation committees. The WCL pointed out that teachers who had gone on strike during the period of application of the collective agreement which had been unilaterally rescinded by the Government were filing court action, but that the courts had rejected the suits brought against them on the grounds that Acts Nos. 70, 105 and 111 were unconstitutional.

B. The Government's reply

1. 130. In a communication of 11 October 1983, the Quebec Government states that Acts Nos. 70, 105 and 111 were necessary in the national economic interest and that it had taken care to limit wage restrictions to the essential minimum and to ensure that they did not extend beyond a reasonable period and, furthermore, that they were accompanied by appropriate guarantees to protect the standard of living of the workers.
2. 131. It explains that the steps it had taken to convince the trade unions of the seriousness of the economic and budgetary crisis facing Quebec and of the requirements of its economic and social policy proved fruitless and it deemed it necessary, in the light of the experience gleaned during these negotiations, to co-operate with the trade unions in revising the labour relations system in the public and, para-public sectors. It states that concrete measures have already been taken to that end.
3. 132. Returning to the question of negotiations, the Government adds that it consulted and negotiated with all the trade unions involved on all of the conditions of employment and that these negotiations led for a large number of these unions, including some of the complainants in this case, to the conclusion of a collective agreement or an agreement amending-the decrees which determine working conditions. Furthermore, it states that the measures taken, i.e. the wage restrictions contained in these Acts, had been applied across the board to all salaried employees whether organised or not.
4. 133. In response to the allegation that the Acts referred to in this complaint deprive trade unionists of their right to strike, the Government claims that the right to strike has in no way been withdrawn from the unions. Indeed, Acts Nos. 70 and 105 simply suspend the exercise of the right to strike for a limited period, i.e. during the three-month extension of the collective agreements.
5. 134. Referring to labour relations in the sectors in question, the Government confirms that the Labour Code establishes a general system of labour relations in Quebec, but that a special chapter is devoted to rules specific to the public and para-public sectors, and that the Act relating to the organisation of employers and workers specifies the conditions applying to negotiations in these particular sectors.
6. 135. The Government explains that the public and para-public sectors are "the Government, its Ministries and governmental bodies, the staff of which is appointed or remunerated pursuant to the Civil Service Act, as well as the schools, school commissions and establishments referred to in the Act governing the organisation of employers and workers for the purposes of collective bargaining in the educational, social affairs and governmental bodies sectors" and that in the present case bargaining took place at the national level and concerned Quebec Government salaried employees, those of the schools and school commissions and those in the social affairs sector (i.e. hospitals, social service centres, reception centres and local. community service centres) and in government bodies.
7. 136. The Government confirms that the general labour relations system is characterised by a monopoly of trade union representation. In this system, a single workers' association may be recognised for the purpose of negotiating a collective agreement, provided that it represents the majority of workers in a specific group and this is generally called a "bargaining unit". A specialised court is responsible for determining which representative workers' association in fact has this majority of members and the choice made by that court can be questioned only in the final months preceding the expiry of a collective agreement.
8. 137. It goes on to explain that the Civil Service Act provides for particular arrangements with regard to negotiable items and the definition of essential services involving government officials. In brief, Quebec legislation provides the same organisation and collective bargaining rights for all salaried employees in the public and para-public sectors as apply to salaried employees in the private sector. Bargaining in these sectors covers not only wages but also most of the other conditions of employment and, indeed in certain sectors, all of the conditions of employment. Furthermore, the right to strike is recognised for most salaried employees in these sectors and nearly all of the employees in the public and para-public sectors are organised and negotiate collective labour agreements with the State.
9. 138. In describing the background to previous negotiations, the Government recalls that they took place in a period of economic growth. Since then the radical change in the economic situation - which no one could have foreseen - has led to a change in the remuneration conditions envisaged for the last year of application of the collective agreements and this meant that these agreements resulted in an untenable budgetary imbalance for the State and the population of Quebec. This being so, the Government called upon its salaried employees to make a collective effort to redress the situation by asking them to agree to wage restrictions dictated by the requirements of its economic policy.
10. 139. Before adopting the three Acts referred to in this complaint, the Government tried to induce the unions to agree voluntarily to the exceptional measures required in the national economic interest. As the economic crisis had been accompanied by a budgetary crisis, a slump in tax earnings, an increase in the cost of social assistance programmes and other supplementary costs resulting from the increase in rates of interest on government borrowings and a reduction in transfers from the Canadian Federal Government, the Government of Quebec claims that the remuneration it was paying as an employer was too high as it accounted for nearly 50 per cent of budgetary expenditure. Indeed as the staff in question comprised more than 335,000 workers, i.e. 15 per cent of all salaried employees in Quebec, the wage bill, i.e. Can.$10,380 million accounted for nearly 50 per cent of the expenditure of the Province of Quebec.
11. 140. This being so, the Government considers that it had no choice in the public interest but to limit wage increases of state employees and to continue with its policy of aligning public sector salaries on those in the private sector.
12. 141. The Government claims to have tried convincing the trade unions to take account of the public interest when they came to negotiating economic and social policies and it invited the main economic and social parties, including representatives of the trade union confederations, to an economic summit meeting in April 1982, at which it publicly announced the dramatic economic and budgetary situation with which it had to cope and where it urged the main social partners to participate in the collective effort in the interests of the Quebec population as a whole.
13. 142. It adds that it explained to them that it was necessary to choose between increasing taxes, cutting back even further on public services or reducing wages paid in the public and the para-public sectors, and that it intended to opt for a policy of reducing the wages of its employees.
14. 143. Between 15 and 20 April 1982, it met with all of the unions in the public and para-public sectors, in order to inform them that it had dismissed the idea of either increasing the burden on the taxpayer, or of substantially cutting back on public services as a means of extricating itself from the budgetary predicament weighing on public finances. It suggested reopening collective bargaining in the public sector as from 1 July 1982, while cutting back the increases envisaged for the last six months inversely proportionally to wage levels. The increases granted for that period amounted to Can.$899 million and the Government states that it asked the trade unions to agree to a reduction of Can.$521 million which would then enable it to balance its budget for 1982-83 and reduce the previously mentioned gap between wages in the public and those in the private sectors. The reorganisation proposed guaranteed full protection against increases in the cost of living for those in the lower salary groups (Can$ 13,150) and a 50 per cent indexing of the middle-range salaries (Can.$22,448) while cancelling the increases envisaged in the case of the highest salary range (Can.$37,089 and above).
15. 144. On 10 May 1982, the central trade unions, united as a common front, offered to begin negotiations in early June, but they tempered this offer by laying down prior conditions for the talks which were unacceptable to the Government. The trade union proposal was, in fact, tantamount to purely and simply relinquishing the wages policy that the Government was trying to have accepted by the unions and it offered absolutely no assurance that a solution could be found in time to allow for the already well overdue preparation of a balanced budget. The Government then let these trade unions know that it accepted their offer immediately to begin negotiations but, in so doing, it pointed out that the unions left it no alternative but to take the steps necessary for balancing its 1982-83 budget. At the same time, the Government undertook, despite all, to pay the wage increases granted up to the expiry of the collective agreements, that is, until 31 December 1982.
16. 145. The Government goes on to explain that, on 25 May 1982 at the reading of its budget speech, it stated that it would waive the unilateral reopening of collective bargaining, and the Minister of Finance announced that, as from 1 January 1983 and for a specified three-month period, some of the increases envisaged for the last six months of the year would be recuperated. The Government, once again on that occasion, reiterated that it was prepared to allow the trade union organisations to negotiate the amounts it would need to balance its budget within the limits determined by the graduated freeze proposed. As difficult as this decision was because of the considerable effects it would have on the outcome of talks to be held with the trade union organisations in the public and para-public sectors, it did show that the government authorities were willing to seek a negotiated solution despite the serious economic and social difficulties caused by the crisis and their concern that employment in the sectors concerned be affected as little as possible because, instead of envisaging massive dismissals in a society which already had a high official unemployment rate (of around 13 per cent) it opted - so it claims - for a cut-back limited exclusively to wages paid by the Public Treasury.
17. 146. The Government confirms that, on 26 May 1982, it tabled Bill No. 70 concerning remuneration in the public sector (L.Q. 1982, c. 35) which was adopted on 23 June 1982, after having passed before a parliamentary committee during which stage the trade union organisations had had the opportunity to express their point of view to the Parliamentarians and the public at large.
18. 147. The Government admits that as it could not reach any agreement with the trade unions on the exclusion from negotiations of certain working conditions, Parliament had to adopt Act No. 70 fixing the remuneration to be paid to salaried employees in the public sector for a three-month period following the date set for the expiry of their collective agreements, even though no agreement had been reached between the parties. The Act extends collective agreements for three months (section 3) and this extension involves a prohibition of all strikes during that three-month period. Furthermore the Act blocks promotions during 1983 and any wage increases based on experience or productivity, but it allows for the possibility of determining different rules by agreement in so far as these alternatives in no way affected wage costs. In other words, Act No. 70 favours collective bargaining within limits and its provisions on the recuperation of wage increases are applied only because it proved impossible to reach any negotiated agreement.
19. 148. Nevertheless, intensive though unsuccessful negotiations followed the adoption of the Act and, by the end of November, the gap between the two parties to the negotiations was such that it was no longer possible to believe that any agreement could be reached within a reasonable period. Hence, faced by the failure of the negotiations and the announcement of a general and unlimited strike in all of the public and para-public sectors and as the Government had to balance its budget for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the Quebec Parliament was, on 11 December 1982, obliged to adopt Act No. 105 which determines working conditions applicable to the public and para-public sectors.
20. 149. The Government claims that Act No. 105 provides for a relaxation of Act No. 70 in such a way as to protect the lower income groups against the wage cuts provided for in Act No. 70 during the period 1 January-31 March 1983 as the negotiations with the trade unions on this point had produced no agreement. The contents of the collective agreements resulting from Act. No. 105 reiterate the clauses on which agreement had been reached between the parties during negotiations and the Government continued to negotiate with the unions in an effort to seek an agreement within the limits beyond which it could not go.
21. 150. It therefore proposed to the unions a moratorium of one year in the application of certain provisions of the decrees relating to security of employment as well as the setting up of a joint salaries body and the creation of joint committees responsible for considering protection of employment and quality and productivity in the services of the social affairs and educational sectors. It also proposed the creation of three working groups responsible respectively for discussing and considering a revision of the Labour Code, the recycling of employees affected by technical changes and the renovation of the negotiating system in the public sector. The trade unions welcomed the proposal concerning a joint body on wages; that body will be responsible for discussing the basis for the Government's wage policy and any alternatives.
22. 151. None the less from the beginning of 1983 certain employees in the public and para-public sectors indulged in illegal work stoppages while negotiations were in progress. As an agreement on principles had been reached with the trade unions in the social affairs sector (hospitals and social services), the strike was limited to teachers. But according to the Government this strike constituted a serious threat to a society shattered by the economic crisis and it would have been irresponsible to tolerate it for any longer.
23. 152. Accordingly, on 17 February 1983, the Quebec Parliament was forced to adopt Act No. 111 to ensure the re-establishment of educational services in the public sector since the teachers were the only organised workers defying the law and their action was paralysing the whole of the primary and secondary public education system in Quebec.
24. 153. The Government confirms that, faced with the threatened disciplinary action provided for in the Act, the trade unions ordered a return to work on 20 February 1983 after a month of illegal strikes and persecution of those who wished to work.
25. 154. The Government admits that the Act imposed a return to work by no later than 17 February 1983 and provided various sanctions for those refusing to comply. Thus each day of illegal strike would result in a reduction in wages equal to the amount that would have been owing for the period of absence due to strike plus a fine. Furthermore, anyone hindering access to a place of work risked dismissal. The Act also provided that, in cases where the sanctions were not enough to ensure the return to work of a sufficient number of workers, the Government could apply additional sanctions. The Government does, however, stress that, in fact, it was not necessary to have recourse to such measures as the teachers decided to return to work shortly after the adoption of the Act.
26. 155. As for the reference, in Act No. 111, to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights, the Government explains that this reference simply allowed for the inversion of the burden of proof in the case of criminal proceedings and that this inversion was justified by the fact that thousands of teachers had broken the law which states, precisely, that teachers absent from work shall be presumed to have broken the law.
27. 156. Once the situation returned to normal, the Government confirms, it convened a Parliamentary commission to examine the causes of the conflict in the education sector and hearings lasted four days during which all parties concerned were able to publicly submit memoranda on the dispute in question. As the result of recommendations made by a number of groups, three arbiters approved by the Quebec Central Teachers' Union were appointed. The arbiters' report, which was accepted by the trade union side, resulted in the signing of agreements amending the decrees applicable to the education sector under Act No. 105. This gesture, claims the Government, shows clearly that - within the limits of its real financial capabilities - it was still prepared to adopt the principle of voluntary bargaining before all else.
28. 157. In concluding, the Government states that there were genuine negotiations throughout the period when the collective agreements were being renewed because the vast majority of unions representing more than two-thirds of salaried employees in the public and para-public sectors accepted the tenor of the collective agreements or else reached agreements amending the decrees which determine their working conditions. According to the Government it was only because of the intransigent nature of the trade union demands and the failure of discussions and negotiations aimed at convincing them to abide voluntarily by the wage restrictions which were made necessary by the crisis that forced the Government to take exceptional measures aimed at instituting a general negotiating framework dictated by the requirements of its economic and social policy. The Government considers that it acted in such a way as to ensure continued negotiation, even on wage questions, within the framework of Act No. 70. It considers also that the context of the economic and budgeting crisis and the failure of negotiations on voluntary wage reductions forced it to adopt, firstly, Act No. 70, and, subsequently, Acts Nos. 105 and 111 and it claims, furthermore, that it had no alternative but to apply wage restriction measures as wages could not be determined by negotiation. In addition, it states, these exceptional measures were of a limited, three-month duration in the case of Act No. 70 and of three years' duration in the case of Acts Nos. 105 and 111 and Government and unions agreed that the joint wage body would be entrusted with reviewing wage conditions contained in the decrees for the third year of application in the light of developments in the economic situation. The Government adds that it did not have the same means as the private employers for obtaining voluntary wage reductions from the unions. It recalls that, in fact, in many Canadian provinces several trade unions in the private sector had voluntarily agreed to wage reductions in order to allow their undertakings to survive and to maintain their jobs, but that in the public and para-public sectors there would be no question of economic survival of the "undertaking" or even a reduction in activities and massive dismissals because public and para-public employees enjoy total job security; therefore the trade unions were not very forthcoming in agreeing to these restrictions. It states, however, that the Government and unions did manage to reach agreements on the working conditions of more than two-thirds of government employees.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 158. The Committee notes that the present case concerns provincial government intervention in wage determination and the exercise of the right to strike in the public and para-public sectors in 1982/83. It further concerns the adoption, in February 1983, of repressive legislation, i.e. Act No. 111, aimed at forcing a return to work of teachers who had taken protest strike action in January 1983 against a unilateral decision by the authorities to reduce their wages. This Act suspended the teachers' right to strike and certain other trade union rights until 31 December 1985.
2. 159. An examination of the legislation, and especially of Act No. 70 of 23 June 1982 accompanied by sessional document No. 350 of 26 May 1982 and of decrees relating to the application of Act No. 70 and amendments thereto introduced by Act No. 105 of 11 December 1982 accompanied by sessional document No. 650 of 9 December 1982, shows that between 1 January and 1 April 1983 many workers in the public and para-public sectors suffered a reduction of some 18 per cent in the salaries which had previously been negotiated between themselves and their employers and that the three-month extension of the collective agreements which would have expired on 31 December 1982 resulted in a suspension of the right to strike for that period. It also appears from Act No. 105 that the wage reductions were imposed on certain employees until 1985.
3. 160. While noting that, according to the Government, negotiations with the trade unions in question did take place and did, for a considerable number of them (two-thirds) including some of the complainant unions, result in the conclusion of collective agreements or other agreements amending decrees determining working conditions, the fact, none the less, remains that Acts Nos. 70 and 105 imposed considerable reductions in wages on one-third of the salaried employees concerned by proclaiming that the Government's financial policy requirements took precedence over collective agreements even though, according to the Government again, intense though fruitless negotiations had taken place since mid-1982. The Committee considers that the imposition under Act No. 105 of such restrictions for three years is too long.
4. 161. The description, advanced by both the complainants and the Government, of the legal framework of collective labour relations in Quebec shows that the Labour Code covers both the public and the private sectors and that the workers in the public and para-public sectors in that province enjoyed the right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike except during the currency of a collective agreement.
5. 162. The Committee would, in general terms, stress the importance it attaches to the principle of the independence of the parties to collective bargaining. This is a principle which was generally recognised during the preparatory discussions leading up to the adoption by the International Labour Conference of the Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 154), 1981. According to this principle, the state bodies should refrain from intervening with a view to amending the tenor of freely concluded collective agreements. The Committee has always indicated that it was aware that in a period of economic and financial crisis a government had to act and find solutions but it is of the opinion that if, for compelling reasons of national economic interest, a government considers that wage rates could not be fixed by collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards.
6. 163. The Committee observes that, according to the Government in this case, the reorganisation proposed did provide for full protection against the effects of an increase in the cost of living for the lower paid salaried employees, that it had indexed half of the middle range of salaries and that it had cancelled the increases envisaged only in the case of the highest salary range (above Can.$37,089). The Committee further notes that the Government set up a provincial consultative body responsible for future discussions on wage policies in these economic sectors.
7. 164. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that, in order to restore a climate of harmonious industrial relations, the Government should continue striving to convince the parties to collective bargaining voluntarily to take account in their negotiations of the major economic and social policy reasons and of the public interest which it had mentioned in connection with the salaried employees affected by these measures. In order to achieve this, these reasons could be discussed at provincial level by all parties within the consultative body to which the Government refers, and such discussions should be held in accordance with the principles of mutual understanding and trust which are specifically defined in the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation (No. 113), 1960.
8. 165. The Committee therefore recommends the Government to continue collective bargaining in the sectors concerned in order to determine wage conditions of all workers in the public and para-public sectors in a climate of mutual trust.
9. 166. In addition, referring specifically to Act No. 111, the Committee notes that according to the complainants, this legislation - apart from having an immediately dissuasive effect as it resulted in a return to work of the teachers who had been on strike in January 1983 as a protest against the unilateral decisions by the authorities to reduce their salaries - also suspended the right to strike of that occupational category until 1985 and appears to contain numerous, restrictions on the normal exercise of trade union rights.
10. 167. The Committee is aware that this legislation (Act No. 111), was adopted in the context of serious economic difficulties and it notes the detailed explanations provided by the Government in this respect.
11. 168. Nevertheless the Committee has, on many occasions, pointed out that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the furthering and defence of their occupational interests and that this right should not be prohibited or restricted other than in services which are essential in the strict sense of the term or in the civil service with respect to officials acting in their capacity as agents of the public authorities. Furthermore, the Committee considers, as it has done in past cases, that members of the teaching profession cannot be considered as performing essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.)
12. 169. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee considers that the suspension of the right to strike imposed until 1985 on teachers should not be maintained.
13. 170. With respect to the other measures envisaged by Act No. 111, the Committee considers that salary reductions for days of strike give rise to no objection from the point of view of the principles of freedom of association, but this does not apply to the restrictions on the normal exercise of trade union rights of teachers contained in the Act (threatened dismissal, strike pickets, loss of years of seniority for strike action and fines, etc.) alleged by the complainants.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 171. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and in particular the following conclusions:
   • (a) The Committee notes that the Government of Quebec strove to negotiate with the trade unions in the public and para-public sectors, and that for a considerable number of them including certain of the complainant unions these negotiations did lead to the conclusion of a collective agreement or some other agreement amending the decrees determining working conditions in those sectors. It expresses concern nevertheless that Acts Nos. 70 and 105 imposed important salary reductions on certain salaried employees in some cases in the order of 18 per cent, by proclaiming that the requirements of government financial policy take precedence over collective agreements. The Committee considers that the imposition under Act No. 105 of such restrictions for three years is too long.
   • (b) The Committee recommends that, in order to restore harmonious industrial relations, the Government should continue collective bargaining in the sectors concerned so as to settle the salary conditions of the workers in question in an atmosphere of mutual trust.
   • (c) As regards Act No. 111, the Committee would recall that teachers should enjoy the right to strike since they do not work in an essential service in the strict sense of the term. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the suspension of the right to strike and other restrictions on trade union rights imposed on teachers until 1985 are not maintained.