Labour experts warn federal back-to-work orders do long-term damage
If the federal government intervenes in this dispute, they may need to use Section 107 again because passing traditional legislation involves far more procedural hoops when the House of Commons is not sitting.
But employment experts warn regardless of method, the more often workers are told they cannot withdraw their work if they do not accept a contract, the worse negotiations become in the future.
“If you do anything to weaken that right to strike … you’re skewing the playing field in management’s direction,” said labour scholar Barry Eidlin.
Temporary labour peace, in other words, comes at the price of long-term problems. And he warns those problems affect not just the specific employer ordered back to work, but workplaces in general.
”It not only favours the employer, but it erodes confidence in collective bargaining as an institution which has far more profound consequences over the long term,” said Eidlin, who is an associate professor of sociology at McGill University.
Labour lawyer Malini Vijaykumar agrees, and says that if the federal government intervenes it encourages other employers to avoid settling and negotiating deals themselves.
”You might get employers in other industries looking at these instances and saying … what’s the case that I can make for the government to come and intervene in my bargaining process should we reach an impasse or a standstill?”
So far, the federal government has not said it will intervene. Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu has called the strike a “disappointing development” and said she’s been on the ground with the Union and WestJet in Calgary.
