Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 327, Mars 2002

Cas no 1951 (Canada) - Date de la plainte: 02-FÉVR.-98 - Clos

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 33. The Committee has been called on several occasions to examine this case, which dealt with a piece of legislation (Bill No. 160) that prevented school principals and vice-principals from forming and joining organizations of their own choosing. Other issues raised were proper consultations with unions on changes brought to existing collective bargaining structures and on the consequences of educational policy on the conditions of employment of workers concerned. When it last examined this case at its November 2001 session, the Committee expressed its regret that the Government merely reiterated its previous arguments, and that its position had not evolved since the filing of the case more than four years ago. The Committee reiterated its request that Bill No. 160 be amended and asked the Government to provide follow-up information on its other recommendations concerning consultations with unions [see 326th Report, paras. 31-33].
2. 34. In its communication of 8 January 2002, the Government states that Canadian courts have consistently upheld its position regarding Bill No. 160. The Government adds that it has recently consulted with a variety of stakeholders, including unions, regarding the formulation of policies and development of legislation affecting the education sector, for instance Bills Nos. 80 and 110. Both prior and during any reform initiative unions and other interested parties may express their views by direct communication with the Government and through the legislative process. The Government carefully considers the inputs it then receives.
3. 35. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the holding of full and frank consultations in situations such as the present one and refers in addition to its comments on this subject in two other cases concerning Ontario elsewhere in this report [Cases Nos. 2119 and 2145]. As regards Bill No. 160, the Committee notes the decision (issued on 20 December 2001 by the country’s highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court of Canada) in the Dunmore case, where the Court held that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the Labour Relations Act was unconstitutional. In so doing, the Court relied, inter alia, on the “without distinction whatsoever” provision of Article 2 of Convention No. 87, and on the wording of Article 10 of the same Convention, “any organization of workers” [J. Bastarache, para. 27]. The Court further referred to Case No. 1900 of the Committee, another complaint concerning Ontario [ibid. para. 41]. The Committee requests, once again, the Government to amend its legislation to ensure that school principals and vice-principals of Ontario may form and join organizations of their own choosing, have access to collective bargaining, and enjoy effective protection from anti-union discrimination and employer interference. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.