Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 308, November 1997

Case No 1900 (Canada) - Complaint date: 23-AUG-96 - Closed

Allegations: Legislative repeal of statutory access to collective bargaining, termination of existing organizing rights and nullification of collective agreements

1. 139. In a communication dated 23 August 1996, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Canada (Ontario).
2. 140. In a communication dated 12 September 1997, the federal Government transmitted an interim reply from the Government of the Province of Ontario.
3. 141. Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It has not ratified the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Rural Workers' Organizations Convention, 1975 (No. 141), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), or the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 142. In its communication dated 23 August 1996, the Canadian Labour Congress, on behalf of its affiliate the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), alleges that the Ontario Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendments Act, 1995 (Bill 7), and the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Schedule "A" to Bill 7), violate ILO standards and principles concerning freedom of association and collective bargaining. In particular, the complainant alleges that, under Bill 7, agricultural workers, domestic workers and certain specified professionals (architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors) are denied access to collective bargaining and the right to strike. In addition, the existing organizing rights of these workers were terminated, their current collective agreements were nullified and measures of protection against anti-union discrimination were removed. Finally, the complainant adds that Bill 7 removes successor rights and related employer rights from Crown employees in Ontario and eliminates successor employer protection from workers in the building services sector.
2. 143. The complainant submits that these measures contravene the express terms of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), as well as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), the Rural Workers' Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141), the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).
3. 144. The complainant specifies that the rights of workers to bargain collectively with employers in the Province of Ontario derive from the Ontario Labour Relations Act or from other statutes regulating collective bargaining for employees in specific sectors. The Labour Relations Act establishes the rules and procedures regarding the certification and decertification of trade unions as bargaining agents for workers, the duty of employers to bargain in good faith with these bargaining agents regarding terms and conditions of employment, and the various protections which facilitate organizing and collective bargaining, including: the prohibition against employer interference with trade unions or employee organizations; the prohibition against intimidation and coercion of workers by employers for union activity, including dismissal for union activities; protection of bargaining rights and collective agreements in cases of a sale of business; and other important protection.
4. 145. Employees not covered by the Labour Relations Act or by another statute regulating collective bargaining are excluded from the protection and coverage of collective bargaining legislation and instead are governed by the common law. According to the complainant, statutory access to collective bargaining is intended to override the hostile approach taken by the courts at common law to union organizing activities and attempts to engage in collective bargaining.
5. 146. Under Canadian law, without the statutory protection for organizing, collective bargaining and strike activity provided by the Labour Relations Act, including administrative enforcement machinery, workers are vulnerable to penalties (including dismissal), to legal action being taken against them for various acts of combination (including the torts of directly or indirectly inducing breach of contract and conspiracy to directly or indirectly induce breach of contract), and employers are under no legal obligation to bargain with employees over terms and conditions of employment. Moreover, common law has not recognized the binding nature of or enforceability of collective agreements.
6. 147. As a result, to be denied access to the statutory machinery of collective bargaining is to be denied access to collective bargaining in any meaningful sense. In short, by removing any category of workers from coverage under the statutory machinery such workers are denied access to the ability to organize and engage in collective bargaining, protection from employer reprisal for engaging in protected union activity and the ability to enter into enforceable collective agreements.
   • Agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers and specified professionals
7. 148. On 10 November 1995 the Ontario Government proclaimed the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendments Act (Bill 7). Section 1(2) of Bill 7 repealed the existing Labour Relations Act and section 1(1) enacted its replacement, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (included as Schedule A of Bill 7).
8. 149. The previous government in Ontario had expanded the definition of employees covered by the Labour Relations Act to include professional employees and domestic workers in the Bill 40 amendments to the Labour Relations Act which were proclaimed in force on 1 January 1993.
9. 150. Limited access to collective bargaining was extended to agricultural and horticultural workers with the enacting of the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, 1994 (Bill 91), which came into force on 23 June 1994.
10. 151. According to the complainant, agricultural and domestic workers are recognized as two of the most vulnerable groups of workers in the Province of Ontario. In the period between the enactment of Bill 40 in 1993 and Bill 91 in 1994, and the coming into force of Bill 7 in 1995, organizing in the agricultural sector in Ontario had commenced under the Agricultural Labour Relations Act. The inclusion of domestic workers had less practical effect (partly since Bill 40 had retained the rule requiring a bargaining unit to be comprised of two or more employees and had enacted no mechanisms to establish sectoral bargaining). Organizing among professional employees, such as lawyers, had begun in some workplaces under Bill 40. In particular, lawyers employed by the Government of Ontario, through their bargaining agent, the Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC), had entered into a collective agreement in March 1995. However, as a result of the enactment of Bill 7 and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by the present Government, access to collective bargaining for agricultural workers, domestic workers and specified professionals has now been withdrawn, and any collective agreements pertaining to these workers have been nullified.
11. 152. Section 3(a), (b) and (c) of the Labour Relations Act provides that the Act does not apply to domestic workers employed in private homes, persons employed in agriculture, hunting or trapping, or persons (other than employees of a municipality or persons employed in silviculture) employed in horticulture by an employer whose primary business is agriculture or horticulture. Section 1(3)(a) provides that, for the purposes of the Act, no person shall be deemed to be an employee who is a member of the architectural, dental, land surveying, legal or medical profession entitled to practice in Ontario and employed in a professional capacity.
12. 153. In addition, for workers to whom the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, 1994, applied, section 80 of Bill 7 strips bargaining agents of existing bargaining rights, extinguishes any existing collective agreements for these workers and terminates any proceedings commenced under the Agricultural Labour Relations Act. Similarly, section 7 of Bill 7 statutorily decertifies bargaining units of professionals employed in architecture, dentistry, land surveying, law and medicine and nullifies any agreements that apply to these employees. Section 7 has already had the effect of (a) extinguishing the bargaining rights for lawyers employed by the Government of Ontario and their bargaining agent, ALOC, and (b) nullifying the collective agreement between ALOC and the Government of Ontario. In the case of domestic workers, there were not yet any collective agreements, so it was unnecessary to terminate existing collective agreements, as in the case of agricultural and professional workers.
13. 154. The complainant submits that excluding agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers and specified professional employees from coverage by the 1995 Labour Relations Act and extinguishing the existing bargaining rights of these workers constitutes discrimination against these employees on the basis of occupation in contravention of Article 2 of Convention No. 87, and the requirements of Convention No. 98. In addition, the exclusion of agricultural workers fails to secure to all those engaged in agriculture the same rights of association and combination as industrial workers are entitled to under Convention No. 11.
14. 155. The complainant emphasizes that, as a result of the Bill 7 amendments to the Labour Relations Act, agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers and specified professional employees no longer have access to the machinery and procedures established under the Act to facilitate collective bargaining. Unions can no longer be certified as bargaining agents of these workers. Indeed, the transitional provisions in sections 7 and 80 of Bill 7 cancel existing bargaining rights for bargaining agents for these workers. Employers of these workers are no longer under any legal obligation to bargain with unions representing the affected workers or, indeed, to engage in any bargaining whatsoever regarding the terms and conditions of employment. The complainant concludes that these measures contravene ILO standards and principles concerning the right to organize and the promotion of machinery for collective bargaining.
15. 156. In addition, having been excluded from the 1995 Labour Relations Act, agricultural workers, domestic workers and affected professional employees are denied protection against anti-union discrimination afforded in the Act. Furthermore, any workers' organizations that are formed by the excluded workers are not protected from acts of interference by employers which is otherwise provided for in the Act.
16. 157. The workers excluded from the 1995 Labour Relations Act also have no right to strike and are not protected from the imposition of penalties or dismissal should they strike. According to the complainant, the Labour Relations Act provides the only guarantee of the continuance of employment status for striking workers and workers at common law have no such protection.
17. 158. The complainant submits that the removal of the right to strike of the affected workers by virtue of their exclusion from the Labour Relations Act is not in conformity the ILO principles governing the right to strike. Furthermore, the removal of the right to strike has not been accompanied by adequate or impartial alternative mechanisms such as arbitration.
    • Successor and related employer protection for Crown employees and building services
18. 159. On another point, the complainant indicates that, for more than 30 years, labour relations legislation in Ontario has provided for the continuation of a union's bargaining rights in the event of a sale of a business (successor rights) or corporate restructuring (related employer rights). Under section 69(2) of the 1995 Labour Relations Act, where a business is sold, the union which has been certified or has given or is entitled to give notice to bargain continues to be the bargaining agent for the employees of the person to whom the business was sold in the like bargaining unit in that business until the Labour Relations Board otherwise declares. The collective agreement between the employees and the original employer continues to be binding on the successor employer and the purchaser stands in the shoes of the vendor with respect to any rights or obligations under the agreement, including seniority and other rights of the employees.
19. 160. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has described the rationale for this provision in the following terms:
    • Section (69(2)) recognizes that collective bargaining rights, once attained, should have some permanence. Rights created either by the Act, or under collective agreements, are not allowed to evaporate with a change of employer. To provide permanence, the obligations flowing from these rights are not confined to a particular employer, but become attached to a business. So long as the business continues to function, the obligations run with that business, regardless of any change of ownership.
20. 161. In addition, under section 1(4) of the Act, the Labour Relations Board has the authority to treat related or associated employers as one employer for the purposes of the Act where their activities are carried on under common control or direction. According to the complainant this section was enacted to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights in situations where enterprises have a close relationship.
21. 162. In 1993, the previous government in Ontario enacted the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (CECBA). Section 10 of CECBA provided that section 64, now section 69(2), of the Labour Relations Act applied to Crown employees with respect to a transfer of an undertaking from an employer whose employees were Crown employees to whom the Act applied to another employer whose employees were not Crown employees; or with respect to a transfer of an undertaking between employers whose employees were Crown employees to whom the Act applied. Section 3 of CECBA provided that section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act also applied with respect to Crown employees. These provisions were, in general, a continuation of successorship and related provisions which had been applicable to Crown employees since the initial enactment of Crown employee collective bargaining legislation in Ontario in 1972.
22. 163. The present Government in Ontario has now eliminated the application of successor and related employer rights for Crown employees. Under Bill 7, sections 69 and 1(4) of the 1995 Labour Relations Act no longer apply to Crown employees. Bill 7 exempts the Crown from the application of the related employer provisions and the successorship provision where the Crown is selling its operations or where it is purchasing operations from another employer.
23. 164. The previous government had also amended the Labour Relations Act in 1993 to provide successor employer protection to workers in the building services sector. Employees in the building services sector, such as cleaners, food services workers and security guards, are customarily employed by contractors who provide services to buildings on a contract tender basis. Once employees at a particular site have been unionized, then without successorship protection, they are vulnerable to their job security and bargaining rights being undermined should the building change contractors to provide the services. If the employees of the original contractor at the site are numerous, the original contractor may be unable to integrate them into its other operations and may, as a result, lay them off. In addition, the new contractor may be a non-unionized employer.
24. 165. The previous government attempted to rectify this situation by amending the Labour Relations Act in 1993 to include section 64.2 which applied with respect to services supplied directly or indirectly to a building owner or manager that is related to servicing the premises, including building cleaning services, food services and security services and provided that a sale of a business, with all the attendant protection for employees and the bargaining agent, is deemed to have occurred:
    • (a) if the employees perform services at the premises that are their principal place of work;
    • (b) if their employer ceases, in whole or in part, to provide the services at those premises; and (c) if substantially similar services are subsequently provided at the premises under the direction of another employer.
25. 166. The purpose of this section was summarized by the Ontario Labour Relations Board as follows:
    • In those industries that depend upon tendering to acquire and keep their businesses and where the services are carried out at the premises of the customer, section 64.2 is designed to overcome the disruption to the employees' preference for a bargaining agent and, to some extent, their attachment to a particular workplace, by preserving aspects of the status quo in the event the contract is lost. The new and successful tenderer will be bound to recognize the trade union's bargaining rights at the site and to apply the contractually agreed terms and conditions of employment.
26. 167. The present Government in Ontario has now eliminated the successor employer protection for workers in the building services sector by specifically repealing this section as of 4 October 1995.
27. 168. The complainant contends that the effect of the amendments to the CECBA eliminating the application of the provisions of the Labour Relations Act regarding successor and related employers to Crown employees is that affected Crown employees will completely lose the protection of both bargaining rights and collective agreements following a sale by the Crown to a firm in the private sector, or the setting up of a related Crown agency to perform work previously done directly by the Crown. The same result obtains for those workers employed in the building services sector when there is a change of contractors.
28. 169. The complainant submits that precluding the application of successor and related employer protection for the affected workers so that they lose the protection of both bargaining rights and existing collective agreements is inconsistent with the principles and standards of freedom of association and collective bargaining.
29. 170. In conclusion, the complainant submits that the measures taken by the Ontario Government in the 1995 Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendments Act and the 1995 Labour Relations Act significantly undermine ILO principles and standards of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

B. The Government's reply

1. 171. In its communication of 12 September 1997, the Government first recalls that a case has been brought before the Ontario Court (General Division) on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union (UFCW) to have Bill 7 declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is expected that this case will be heard on 21-23 October 1997. The Government considers that the scope and application of the concept of freedom of association is at the heart of both the domestic constitutional challenge and the complaint brought before the ILO. Furthermore, the issue of equality rights raises the question of whether a statutory labour relations regime can differentiate between occupational groups. Moreover, it is the Government's view that, since the complaint involves rights provided under the Canadian Constitution, it is most appropriate that the domestic court be provided the opportunity to consider the issues raised first in the domestic legal context. Finally, the Government indicates that it is possible that evidence to be introduced in the court proceedings and the court's deliberations will provide information that could prove useful to the Committee. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Government indicates its desire for the Committee to once again postpone its examination of this complaint until the outcome of the case before the Ontario Court. It then provides the following information in the form of an interim reply pending the outcome of the UFCW constitutional case.
2. 172. The Government then indicates that, in light of the above, it does not intend to set forth its position in great detail, but does outline briefly the rationale for the Bill 7 changes. As concerns the repeal of the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, 1994, the Government indicates that agriculture in Ontario is overwhelmingly dominated by family farms. The sector is thus characterized by extremely low profit margins and unstructured, highly personal working relationships which make a statutory labour relations regime (and collective bargaining dispute resolution mechanisms in particular) inappropriate. Other aspects of Bill 7 that have been criticized are the restoration of certain exemptions from labour relations legislation based on occupational status, and the elimination of the application of the sale of a business provisions in such legislation to transactions involving the Crown and to certain transactions in the building services industry. With respect to the former, the Government indicates its view that labour laws originally enacted with industrial settings in mind are not always suitable for non-industrial workplaces, such as private homes and professional offices, where occupational duties and professional obligations may not be compatible with the highly formalized terms and conditions of employment and at least somewhat adversarial nature of relationships typical of a unionized environment.
3. 173. The Government confirms its strong support for free collective bargaining. Bill 7 is designed to ensure an appropriate balance of power between unions and employers and to enhance the democratic rights of employees to be represented by a union of their choice. However, the Government indicates that what may be acceptable or even welcome consequences of unionization in an industrial setting can prove to be contrary to the public interest in certain other settings.
4. 174. With respect to the application of the sale of a business provisions of Ontario's 1995 Labour Relations Act, the Government points out that the exclusion of Crown employees (which results from the fact that the Crown Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, does not incorporate those provisions by reference) does not in any way take away the right of such employees to unionize and establish a collective bargaining relationship with the new employer following the sale. Moreover, the Government has undertaken certain contractual obligations aimed at protecting the rights of former Crown employees in sale situations. As to the building services industry transactions that were briefly covered by the sale provisions of the predecessor labour relations legislation, these transactions had not historically been regarded as constituting a sale of a business in the first place. Furthermore, similar to the case of the Crown employees, there is nothing to prevent former employees of an outgoing building services contractor from unionizing and establishing collective bargaining rights with the incoming contractor. These employees are not excluded from the right to bargain collectively.
5. 175. The Government concludes in hoping that this information will assist the Committee in providing interim conclusions pending a further submission once the judgement in the UFCW constitutional challenge has been rendered.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 176. The Committee notes that this case concerns the exclusion of agricultural workers, domestic workers and certain specified professionals (architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors) from access to collective bargaining and the right to strike through the adoption of the Ontario Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendments Act, 1995 (Bill 7), and the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995. The complainant further alleges that, with the adoption of Bill 7, the existing organizing rights of these workers were terminated, their current collective agreements were nullified and the statutory measures for protection against anti-union discrimination and interference on the part of the employer were removed. Finally, the complainant alleges that Bill 7 removes successor rights and related employer rights from Crown Employees in Ontario and eliminates successor employer protection from workers in the building services sector.
2. 177. Firstly, as concerns the Government's indication that the examination of this case should be postponed pending the outcome of the constitutional challenge raised by the United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union (UFCW) before the Ontario Court, the Committee would recall that, although the use of internal legal procedures is undoubtedly a factor to be taken into consideration, it has always considered that, in view of its responsibilities, its competence to examine allegations is not subject to the exhaustion of national procedures. (See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, Annex I, para. 33.) Furthermore, while sensitive to the Government's arguments, the Committee considers that, to the contrary, its examination of this case (originating from a complaint dating back to August 1996) on the basis of long-established international principles of freedom of association may facilitate national consideration of this matter in the light of those principles.
   • Agricultural workers, domestic workers and certain specified professionals
3. 178. Firstly, the Committee notes that the 1995 Labour Relations Act (LRA) excludes domestic workers, persons employed in agriculture, hunting or trapping and persons employed in horticulture by an employer whose primary business is agriculture or horticulture (section 3(a), (b) and (c)). Architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors are also excluded from the definition of "employee" for the purposes of the LRA under section 1(3)(a). Prior to the 1995 amendments made to the LRA by Bill 7, domestic workers and professional employees were covered by the Act and agricultural and horticultural workers were covered by the LRA by means of incorporation into the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, 1994. The latter was repealed by section 80 of Bill 7.
4. 179. The Committee notes that the LRA establishes the rules and procedures regarding certification and decertification of trade unions as bargaining agents for workers, the duty of employers to bargain in good faith, and various protections including: the prohibition against interference by employers in union activities and against measures of anti-union discrimination, including dismissal; and the protection of bargaining rights and collective agreements in the case of a sale of a business. Moreover, employees who are not covered by the LRA, or by another statute regulating these matters, are excluded from the protection and coverage of collective bargaining legislation and are instead governed by the common law which, according to the complainant, has taken a hostile approach to organizing activities and attempts to engage in collective bargaining and has not recognized the binding nature, or enforceability, of collective agreements.
5. 180. Beyond excluding the above-noted category of workers from the various protections afforded by the LRA, the Committee also notes that sections 7 and 80 of Bill 7 terminate the bargaining rights of existing bargaining agents and nullify existing collective agreements for these groups. According to the complainant, organizing had already begun in the agricultural sector and among professional employees and some collective agreements had been entered into during the short period between the granting of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights to these workers and their repeal through Bill 7.
6. 181. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, considers that a statutory labour relations regime and collective bargaining dispute resolutions mechanisms are inappropriate for agricultural work and non-industrial workplaces because of the low profit margins and unstructured, highly personal working relationships in the former and the occupational duties and professional obligations in the latter, which may not be compatible with the highly formalized terms and conditions of employment and the somewhat adversarial nature of relationships typical of a unionized environment.
7. 182. The Committee would first recall that Article 2 of Convention No. 87 (ratified by Canada) is designed to give expression to the principle of non-discrimination in trade union matters, and the words "without distinction whatsoever" used in this Article mean that freedom of association should be guaranteed without discrimination of any kind based on occupation, etc. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 205.) Furthermore, by virtue of the principles of freedom of association, all workers - with the sole exception of members of the armed forces and police - should have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing. As concerns domestic workers, the Committee recalls the Committee of Experts' position that, since these workers are not excluded from the application of Convention No. 87, they should be governed by the guarantees it affords and should have the right to establish and join occupational organizations (General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, para. 59).
8. 183. Furthermore, noting that the exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers and certain categories of professional employees also means that these workers are not covered by the provisions of the LRA granting and protecting strike action, the Committee recalls that it has always recognized the right to strike by workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests (see Digest, op. cit., para. 474). However, the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only: (1) with respect to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (2) in 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 whole or part of the population) (see Digest, para. 526). The Committee has always been of the view that agricultural activities do not constitute an essential service (see Digest, para. 545). As regards the nature of appropriate guarantees in cases where restrictions are placed on the right to strike in essential services and the public service, restrictions should be accompanied by adequate impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage and in which the awards, once made, are fully and promptly implemented (see Digest, op. cit., para. 547).
9. 184. In light of the above principles, the Committee, referring also to the comments addressed to the Government by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, calls upon the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers, architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors all enjoy the protection necessary, either through the LRA or by means of occupationally specific regulations, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the right to strike is not denied to agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers, architects, land surveyors and lawyers and to ensure adequate compensatory guarantees where this right may be restricted in respect of the medical profession.
10. 185. As concerns the exclusion of these workers from the collective bargaining machinery established by virtue of the LRA, the Committee notes the complainant's contention that the employers concerned are no longer under any legal obligation to bargain with unions representing the affected workers or to engage in any bargaining whatsoever regarding the terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that these workers are denied the protection against anti-union discrimination and employer interference afforded in the LRA.
11. 186. While not neglecting the importance it places on the voluntary nature of collective bargaining, the Committee recalls that measures should be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements (see Digest, op. cit., para. 781). Furthermore, the preliminary work for the adoption of Convention No. 87 clearly indicates that "one of the main objects of the guarantee of freedom of association is to enable employers and workers to form organizations independent of the public authorities and capable of determining wages and other conditions of work by means of freely concluded collective agreements". (See Digest, op. cit., para. 799.) As concerns protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that section 81(1) of Bill 7 only protects agricultural workers from discrimination in employment on the grounds that the person was a member of a trade union or had exercised or attempted to exercise any rights under the ALRA which was subsequently repealed by the 1995 Act. Thus, it appears that any union activity carried out by agricultural workers after the entry into force of Bill 7 would not be statutorily protected, nor would such activities carried out by the other groups of workers not covered by the protective provisions of the LRA. The Committee would recall in this respect the need to ensure by specific provisions, accompanied by civil remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the hands of the employer.
12. 187. The Committee therefore considers that the absence of any statutory machinery for the promotion of collective bargaining and the lack of specific protective measures against anti-union discrimination and employer interference in trade union activities constitutes an impediment to one of the principle objectives of the guarantee of freedom of association, that is the forming of independent organizations capable of concluding collective agreements. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures so that agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers, architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors have access to machinery and procedures which facilitate collective bargaining and to ensure that these workers enjoy effective protection from anti-union discrimination and employer interference.
13. 188. Noting further the complainant's allegation that the organizations which had already been created and recognized as bargaining agents in the agricultural sector and among professional employees (following the amendments which extended the application of the LRA to these workers) were decertified by virtue of sections 7(2) and 80(3) of Bill 7, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure their re-certification and to keep the Committee informed of the progress made in this regard.
14. 189. Finally, noting that the collective agreements pertaining to agricultural workers and professional employees which had been entered into by virtue of the pre-1995 version of the LRA were annulled under sections 7(3) and 80(2) of Bill 7, the Committee would recall that the suspension or derogation by decree - without the agreement of the parties - of collective agreements freely entered into by the parties violates the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining (see Digest, op. cit., para. 876). The Committee therefore requests the Government to revalidate the collective agreements in question and to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.
    • Crown employees and building services
15. 190. The Committee notes that sections 15 and 23 of Bill 7 repeal the provisions of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (CECBA) which incorporated provisions of the LRA concerning successor rights and related or associated employers. Similarly, the application of successor rights provisions to building services is repealed by Bill 7. The Committee takes due note of the Government's indication however that the absence of applicable successor rights provisions does not take away the right of employees to unionize and to establish a collective bargaining relationship with the new employer following the sale and that the Government has undertaken certain contractual obligations aimed at protecting the rights of former Crown employees in sale situations.
16. 191. As concerns Crown employees, while noting the Government's indication that Crown employees and building services workers would, despite the absence of applicable successor rights provisions, continue to enjoy the right to organize and to establish a collective bargaining relationship with the new employer following the sale of a business or change of contractor, the Committee would point out that proprietorial changes, in the absence of sufficient protective guarantees, may give rise to serious instability in labour relations and constitute a danger to the meaningful exercise of the right to organize. The Committee therefore welcomes the Government's indication that it has undertaken certain contractual obligations aimed at protecting the rights of former Crown employees in sale situations.
17. 192. With respect to the repeal of successor rights' provisions concerning building services, the Committee notes the Government's indication that workers in the building services maintain their rights to organize and to bargain collectively. The Committee would, nevertheless, point out that, in the absence of sufficient protective measures, a new contractor could take actions which would threaten the right to organize and collective bargaining rights. It therefore requests the Government to take measures to ensure that these rights are adequately protected and to keep it informed in this regard.
18. 193. Finally, the Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 194. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) As concerns the denial of the right to organize for agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers, architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that these workers all enjoy the protection necessary, either through the LRA or by means of occupationally specific regulations, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.
   • (b) As concerns the denial of the right to strike, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that this right is not denied to agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers, architects, land surveyors and lawyers and to ensure adequate compensatory guarantees where this right may be restricted in respect of the medical profession.
   • (c) As concerns the denial of machinery for collective bargaining and the absence of provisions protecting against anti-union discrimination and employer interference for agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers, architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee access for these workers to machinery and procedures which facilitate collective bargaining and to ensure that these workers enjoy effective protection from anti-union discrimination and employer interference.
   • (d) As concerns the decertification of organizations of agricultural workers and certain specified professionals, by virtue of sections 7(2) and 80(3) of Bill 7, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that these organizations are re-certified and to keep the Committee informed of the progress made in this regard.
   • (e) As concerns the legislative annulment of collective agreements, the Committee requests the Government to revalidate the collective agreements pertaining to agricultural workers and professional employees which had been entered into by virtue of the pre-1995 version of the LRA and which were subsequently annulled under sections 7(3) and 80(2) of Bill 7 and to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.
   • (f) The Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the right to organize and collective bargaining rights are adequately protected in building services and to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (g) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case.