To force a return to work, would Sonia LeBel deviate?

“Are you preparing a special law?” This question constitutes a sort of reflex for any Quebec journalist covering an impasse in negotiations between the government and state employees.

The question is currently cropping up here and there in press briefings. The longer the strikes last, the more frequent it will be.

In the past, obviously, this is how the play “Les negos” often ended: saying that it had run out of patience, the government opted for bludgeoning law.

For example, in December 2005, the Charest government adopted, under a gag order, Bill 142, which suspended the right to strike and decreed the working conditions of all 450,000 public sector employees.

New law

However, the constitutionality of laws of this type has been repeatedly challenged since 2005. With success for the union camp.

This is what Professor Patrick Taillon reminded me on Monday at my microphone in Qub: between 2007 and 2015, the Supreme Court (CSC) neither more nor less sacralized the right to strike, making it derive from the right to association (article 2d).

The CSC established that governments, both employers AND legislators, must negotiate in “good faith”, and be careful not to abuse the “superpower” they possess (unlike “normal” employers): adopt a special law abruptly ending a strike or negotiation.

The situation has therefore changed considerably since 2015. Moreover, special laws adopted by the Couillard government (state lawyers’ strike and conflict in the construction field) have been declared unconstitutional.

Sonia LeBel, president of the Treasury Board, a lawyer by trade, undoubtedly understands this situation very well. In the past, a government that decreed working conditions risked paying a significant political price. In 2007, Jean Charest was re-elected but in the minority, among other things because the numerous state employees had adopted this slogan, printed on 1001 stickers: “Law 142: I will remember it!” Today, in addition to the political price, there is the risk of paying a legal price.

This takes away significant room for maneuver from our governments, which are faced with employees who are also not “normal”; possessing a sort of “superpower”: paralyzing essential services to the population.

Archive photo

Complexification

The judicialization of negotiations between government and state employees can have perverse effects, underlined Mr. Taillon. In particular, prolong strikes beyond reason. Among other things because the negotiation is more complex: we imagine the pile of evidence that each side must amass in order to demonstrate to a possible court that, in this process, it was in “good faith”, unlike the other side. …

No surprise that in 2022, in Ontario, to shield itself against possible disapproval from the courts, Doug Ford’s government drafted a special law (without having it adopted), forcing the return to work of its teachers, but including a ” parliamentary sovereignty provision”, aka “notwithstanding clause”.

Therefore, the question to ask Sonia LeBel must now be: “If the conflict continues, will you adopt a special law with a derogation provision?”

Strike calendar
day by day

Tuesday

Common Front Strike Day 1 of 3

Details

Wednesday

Common Front Strike Day 2 of 3

Details

THURSDAY

Common Front Strike Day 3 of 3

Details

FIQ strike Day 1 of 2

Details

FAE general strike Unlimited

Details


source site-64