In Quebec, public transit is not an essential service. This is the message that emerges from the recent judgment of the Administrative Labor Tribunal (TAT), which does not subject the Réseau de transport de la Capitale (RTC) and the drivers’ union to the obligation to maintain essential services in the event of strike.
Prior to 2019, the Essential Services Council decided who had to comply with the rules governing the provision of essential services. Decisions were made by government decrees, without inquiry or hearing.
Since then, it is the TAT that settles these questions, and essential services are maintained if, and only if, the latter judges that a strike is likely to endanger public health or safety.
In this case, he concludes that a potential strike, which would cause additional congestion, would not prevent emergency vehicles from moving smoothly and would not threaten safety.
However, beyond the application of the criterion relating to the danger to others, it is inevitable that a disruption of services would have real and major consequences for thousands of people, particularly for those for whom public transit is the only option. to fulfill their obligations.
This means that the current notion of essential services in no way takes into account the reality of a person with limitations or reduced mobility, students, low-income people or workers for whom teleworking is not an option. .
Don’t these people deserve to maintain a minimum public transport service in the event of a strike? Are we to understand that mobility does not have the same value for everyone? Should we accept that a gap of possibilities is widening between those who rely on public transport and those who have access to a car? And if a possible strike continued for several months, should they be patient and stay at home, or even lose their jobs for lack of being able to go there?
Faced with these examples, it seems simplistic to me to base the essential nature of public transport solely on the basis of the presence of a danger for the population.
During the pandemic, the government never doubted that public transit should be maintained because of its importance. Why would it be any different today? Isn’t it paradoxical?
This also appears to contradict the will of the Quebec government, which through its sustainable mobility policies, wants more people to choose public transit. To achieve the objectives set, the population must be able to count on the presence of the service in their daily lives.
By modifying the Labor Code in 2019, did the Government of Quebec properly measure all the impacts? Should additional criteria have been inserted into the law in order to ensure a better balance between the right of employees to strike and the right of the population to travel? It is clear that the effects of this amendment upset 40 years of balance in labor relations and create a precedent that could have an impact on other major cities in Quebec. The big loser will always be the customer.
Several are asking the RTC to challenge the decision of the TAT. But beyond a judicial review process, the outcome of which we do not know, the fundamental question in this era of the fight against climate change is rather: is public transit an essential service?
For the City of Quebec and the Réseau de transport de la Capitale, the answer is yes. But what about the Quebec government?
For our part, we will concentrate all our efforts at the bargaining table in the coming days, because we have a strike to avoid.
We owe this to our customers, because in our eyes, they are essential. And we are to theirs.