Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 1987, Publicación: 73ª reunión CIT (1987)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Canadá (Ratificación : 1972)

A Government representative recalled that the matter raised by the Committee of Experts referred to the implementation of the Convention in the Provinces of Newfoundland and Alberta, and that under the Constitution of Canada the Provinces had exclusive powers in the area of labour affairs within their own jurisdiction. With regard to the situation in Newfoundland the Committee of Experts had referred to Bill 59 which was said to "exclude many workers from the definition of employees". The Committee of Experts had requested that this be amended so as "to allow workers without distinction whatsoever the right to belong to a union of their own choosing". Freedom of association was one of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada. Consequently, the question raised by the Committee of Experts had to do not with freedom of association but with the granting of certification rights for the purpose of collective bargaining. In this regard, the Committee on Freedom of Association had concluded that the exclusion of public service employees' involved in the development of administration of policies or programmes was not contrary to the principles of freedom of association. Therefore, what the Committee of Experts was referring to had to do firstly with the designation of "essential employees" in the event of a strike and secondly, with the procedures for access to arbitration in the case of disputes involving employees designated as "essential". Both these issues had been under review, as would be seen later. Before this, it must be stated that the observations of the Committee of Experts on the comments made in this respect by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) gave the erroneous impression that the Newfoundland public employees' strike had been renewed in September 1986 "because" the work of the Legislative Review Committee had been delayed. As had been outlined in the Government's report this was not the case. In the months following the back-to-work agreement signed in April 1986 the Government had held a number of discussions with the union concerning the establishment of a Legislative Review Committee, and in the course of these discussions it had been agreed by both parties that the Review Committee would not be in a position to start the review process before the autumn of 1986. In August 1986, at the request of the union, negotiations had resumed on the outstanding issue of wage parity between two different collective bargaining units. It was because agreement could not be reached on this issue that the union had resumed the strike. As the Committee of Experts had pointed out, all arrests and charges made in connection with that strike had been made in accordance with due process of law.

The establishment of the Legislative Review Committee to which reference had been made earlier had been approved by the Newfoundland Cabinet the previous autumn, and comprised representatives from various government departments as well as representatives from a number of interested labour organisations. Its mandate was to review the public sector labour relations legislation, including the question of the right to bargain collectively, the right to strike, the exclusions from the definitions of "employee", the procedure for the designation of "essential employee", and the matter of access to an objective arbitration process. Consideration of these matters would address the observation of the ILO supervisory bodies. In the public hearings of the Review Committee interested groups had had the opportunity to make written or oral presentations. The final report and recommendations of the Legislative Review Committee were expected to be ready early in the autumn of 1987.

With regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the Province of Alberta, the tripartite legislative review initiated by the Government of Alberta was currently in progress. The review was to be conducted in two phases. The first, dealing with the labour relations legislation pertaining to the private sector, was expected to be completed by the spring of 1988. The second phase, dealing with the legislation applying to the public sector, was expected to be concluded approximately one-and-a-half years later. The matters raised by the Committee of Experts would be addressed in this review. Following completion of this review, the tripartite review committee would submit recommendations to the Alberta Minister of Labour for consideration. The speaker indicated that, in accordance with the Government's constant practice, full details on developments relating to the matters raised by the Committee of Experts would be included in the next report on the implementation of this Convention.

The Workers' members noted that the Government representative had given pertinent information on the discussions that had taken place, the preparatory works, the conclusions to be formulated and the projects under way. This information would be brought to the attention of the Committee of Experts. It could be seen that the provincial governments concerned had proceeded with a new consideration of the matters brought up by the Committee of Experts, with particular reference to the trade union affiliation of public servants and employees and their right to strike. The problems at issue had been raised with the Government by a trade union organisation through its comments to the ILO, which showed that the ILO could also contribute to overcoming difficulties in such concrete cases in countries like Canada. The information provided and other information to be submitted should show the way in which the present difficulties could be overcome.

The Employers' members also thanked the Government representative for the full and specific information provided. They recalled that the matters dealt with by the Committee of Experts referred to events that had taken place in two Canadian Provinces, in particular in the context of a dispute concerning the right to freedom of association in the public service. A strike had been called, and at a certain time had been declared illegal, and certain measures had been taken against those leading the strike. This was not a matter of beginning a discussion on the right to strike. The Committee of Experts had not done this either, but pointed out that trade unionists as much as other citizens had to respect the legal order of the country. From the observation of the Committee of Experts and the statement of the Government representative, it appeared that a solution to the questions under consideration could be hoped for in the near future.

The Worker member of Canada thanked the Government representative for her detailed indications. With regard to the observations on Newfoundland, he confirmed that the Joint Legislative Review Committee had indeed been established and that the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, among other trade union organisations, was represented on it. Satisfaction could be expressed at the somewhat improved climate of consultation in Newfoundland and at the fact that the Government of Newfoundland had now recognised and heeded ILO recommendations. The results of the work of the Legislative Review Committee were awaited, and he shared the hope expressed by the Committee of Experts that the law would be amended "to ensure full conformity with the Convention on the points raised previously by the Committee".

In the case of Alberta, the situation was unfortunately quite the opposite. The situation had remained unchanged since the ILO study and information mission had occurred in September 1985. The Minister of Labour of the Province of Alberta had established a Labour Legislation Review Committee which had visited a number of countries with a view to obtaining information on the practical application of labour legislation. This Committee also heard the opinions of representatives of workers', employers' and other groups in the province. However, its report with recommendations issued in February 1987 had dealt only with the Alberta Labour Relations Act and made scarce mention of the Public Service Employee Relations Act. Only 10 per cent of the members of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees were employed by agencies funded by the Government of Alberta and thus governed by the Labour Relations Act. This meant that only these members would be affected by the recommendations of the above-mentioned review committee. Some of the specific recommendations were as follows: allowing the use of replacement workers during a strike; denying supporters of a strike who where not members of the bargaining unit on strike the right to demonstrate in support of strikers on the picket line; allowing for decertification of a bargaining unit in which only 40 per cent of the members supported decertification. Clearly, none of these recommendations would enhance the state of labour relations in the Province. The Government of Alberta had not yet proposed any changes to the Public Service Employee Relations Act, nor given any undertaking or indication that it would make the changes necessary to bring the public sector labour legislation into conformity with the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in November 1985. In his opinion, the Government of Alberta intended to ignore these recommendations just as it had ignored similar recommendations made in May 1979 and November 1980. The speaker requested the present Committee to remind the Government of Alberta through the Federal Government of Canada of its obligation to comply with the provisions of Convention No. 87, and to request it to submit to the ILO a written report explaining why it had consistently chosen to ignore the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts.

The Government representative of Canada thanked the Worker member of Canada for his comments and said they would be transmitted to the Government of Alberta.

The Committee took note of the discussion that had taken place and in particular of the detailed information supplied by the Government representative. The Committee expressed the hope that the on-going discussion and consultations in the provinces concerned would lead to the removal of the difficulties that had been noted by the present Committee and other bodies regarding the application of the Convention. The Committee also expressed the hope that the Government would report on further developments in this connection, and transmit to the Government of Alberta the observations made during the discussion on the matters relating to that Province.