Labour Rights Campaigns


 

 

Canada's Record at the International Labour Organization (ILO) (updated January 2010)

 

Since 1982, Canada's record with respect to the number of complaints submitted to the ILO's Freedom of Association Committee is the worst of any of the International Labour Organization's (ILO) 183 member States with unions in Canada filing more complaints than the national labour movements of any other country.

The 79 ILO complaints filed against Canadian federal and provincial labour legislation represent almost five percent of all complaints filed with the ILO since 1982. Several of these complaints were subject to more than one restrictive piece of labour legislation.

Of those 79 complaints, the ILO has reached decisions on 77 and found that freedom of association principles had been violated in 73 of the cases. Over 90 percent of all ILO complaints on restrictive labour laws passed in Canada since 1982 were found to be in violation of ILO freedom of association principles.

ACTIVE CASES

Case No. 2704 against the Government of Ontario

Agricultural Employees Protection Act (Bill 187, November 2002)
This Act denies agricultural employees in the province of Ontario the right to engage in collective bargaining.practices from employers.
Submitted by the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (UFCW) (March 2009)

The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has not yet ruled on this complaint.

Case No. 2654 against the Government of Saskatchewan:

An Act respecting Essential Public Services (Bill 5, June 2008)
This Act provided for a definition of essential services so broad that practically any public service employee could be designated as an essential worker and therefore not eligible to exercise the right to strike. It is the most sweeping and heavy-handed essential services legislation in Canada.
An Act to amend the Trade Union Act (Bill 6, June 2008)
This Act limits the rights of Saskatchewan’s workers. It reduces the ability of working people to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining. It also leaves workers with less protection against unfair practices from employers.
Submitted by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (June 2008).

The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has not yet ruled on this complaint. 


FOLLOW-UP CASES


Case No. 2430 against the Government of Ontario:

Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.15 (CCBA)
This Act denies all part-time employees employed by any of the public colleges in the province of Ontario the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining.
Submitted by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (June 2005)
 
This legislation was found not to comply with ILO of freedom of association principles.
 

Case No. 2257 against the Government of Quebec:

Quebec Labour Code
Sections of the Act deny the right of managerial staff in Quebec to bargain collectively regarding their working conditions and do not provide mechanisms for settling disputes in the absence of the right to strike, which formed the basis of the complaint.
Submitted by the Confédération nationale des cadres du Quebec (CNCQ), the Association of Senior Managerial Staff of Health and Social Services (ACSSSS), the Association of Branch Managers of the Société des alcools du Québec (ADDS/SAQ) and the Association of Managerial Staff of the Société des casinos du Québec (ACSCQ) (March 2003).

Those sections of the legislation that deny managerial employees the right to collective bargaining were found not to comply with ILO freedom of association principles.

Case Nos. 2166 / 2173 / 2180 / 2196 against the Government of British Columbia:

Health Care Services Continuation Act, 2000 (Bill 2, June)
The Act ended a province-wide strike by health care professionals, imposed a 60-day “cooling-off” period and ordered the parties to resume bargaining.
 
Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act, 2001 (Bill 15, August)
The Act imposed a three-year collective agreement on health care professionals based on the terms of the employer’s last offer. The Bill was introduced after the 60-day “cooling-off” period imposed by Bill 2 (see above) failed to reach a collective agreement.
 
Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 18, August)
The Act restricted the right to strike for employees in the public school system by extending the designation of “essential services” to teaching and non-teaching personnel and prohited strikes until essential service designations had been made by the Labour Relations Board.
 
Education Service Collective Agreement Act, 2002 (Bill 27, January)
The Act impacted on more than 45,000 teachers employed by schools boards in the province. It imposed on them a three-year collective agreement that contained terms and conditions of the employer’s last offer. The legislation prohibited the right to strike without providing access to an independent arbitration process.
 
Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, 2002 (Bill 28, January)
The Act permitted public school board employers to override negotiated collective agreement provisions for teachers regarding class size, courses to be taught, hours of instruction and job security. It also allowed for contracting out.
 
Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, 2002 (Bill 29, January)
The Act eliminated much of the job security protection for health and social service workers that their unions managed to bargain as part of their collective agreements. The legislation empowered health and social service employers to “contract out” to non-union employers not bound by the terms of the collective agreements, notwithstanding clauses to the contrary in collective agreements.

Case No. 2166 was submitted by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (December 2001); Case No. 2173 was submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the British Columbia Nurses’ Union (BCNU), the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) (February 2002); Case No. 2180 was submitted by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (March 2002); and Case No. 2196 was submitted by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) (May 2002).

All six pieces of legislation were found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

CLOSED CASES

 

Case No. 2467 against the Government of Quebec: 

An Act Respecting the Working Conditions in the Public Sector, 2005 (Bill 142, December) The Act imposed wages and working conditions on Quebec’s 500,000 public sector workers until March 2010. It imposed a 33-month wage freeze retroactive to June 30, 2003, and annual wage increases of two percent in the last four years of the legislated contract.  The imposed contract will expire in March 2010.Submitted by the Association des substituts du procureur général du Québec (January 2006)

This legislation was found not to comply with the ILO freedom of association principles.

Case No. 2405 against the Government of British Columbia:

Teachers’ Collective Agreement Act, 2005 (Bill 12, October)
This Act resulted in five years of imposed conditions of employment, no improvement in students’ learning conditions, and a freeze on teachers’ salaries.
Submitted by the Education International (EI) on behalf of the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) and the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with ILO freedom of association principles.
 

Case Nos. 2333  2314 against the Government of Quebec:

An Act to amend the Act respecting health services and social services, 2003 (Bill 7, December)
The Act decertified existing unions of workers in “family-type” health and social service agencies providing residential care for clients of the health and social services system and prohibited the creation of new ones by decreeing that employees are no longer employees; instead, they are to be considered to be self-employed, or independent workers.
An Act to amend the Act respecting childcare centres & childcare services, 2003 (Bill 8, December)
This Act decertified existing unions of home childcare providers and prohibited the creation of new ones by decreeing that employees are no longer employees; instead, they are to be considered to be self-employed, or independent workers.
Case No. 2333 was submitted by the Centre of Democratic Trade Unions (CSD), the Central des syndicats du Québec (CSQ) and the Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ) (March 2004) and Case No. 2314 was submitted by the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN) supported by Public Services International (PSI) (December 2003).
 
These two pieces of legislation were found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case Nos. 2343 / 2401 / 2403 against the Government of Quebec:

An Act respecting bargaining units in the social affairs sector and amending the Act respecting the process of negotiations of the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors, 2003 (Bill 30, December)
The Act set a ceiling of four bargaining units per health care employer, introduced a mandatory bargaining process and eliminated the right to strike and the arbitration framework beyond the negotiation of the first agreement.
Case No. 2343 was submitted by the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN) (May 2004); Case No. 2403 was submitted by the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques (CSD), Centrale des syndicats de Québec (CSQ) and Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ) (October 2004); and Case No. 2401 was submitted by the Syndicat des professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernment de Québec (SPGQ) (November 2004).
 
The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association ruled that based on the complainant’s allegations and the government’s reply, it is not clear whether the legislation is in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee has therefore requested the Government of Quebec to send further information on the legislation, particularly as regards the independence of the mediator-arbitrator and the compensatory mechanisms that are available to workers in the sector who are deprived of the right to strike.
 

Case No. 2349 against the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador:

Resumption and Continuation of Public Services Act, 2004 (Bill 18, April)
The Act ended a 27-day strike of 20,000 public service employees and imposed a four-year collective agreement with a two-year wage freeze and increases of two percent and three percent in the third and fourth year of the legislated contract.
Submitted by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (May 2004).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the freedom of association principles.
 

Case No. 2324 against the Government of British Columbia:

Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95, December)
The Act ended a strike by ferry workers employed by the newly privatized BC Ferry Corporation.  
Coastal Ferry Act, 2003 (Bill 18, March)
The Act allowed private contractors to override contracting out provisions contained in the ferry workers’ collective agreement.
Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, 2003 (Bill 94, November)
The Act prevented the Labour Relations Board and arbitrators from making a true employer declaration for employees working for a private contractor or subcontractor in the health sector. It also overrode collective agreement provisions prohibiting contracting out, rewrote layoff and bumping provisions and reduced severance pay below even the minimum standards applicable to non-unionized employees under provincial Employment Standards legislation.
Submitted by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (February 2004).
 
These three pieces of legislation were found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 2305 against the Government of Ontario:

Back to School (Toronto Catholic Elementary) and Education and Provincial Schools Negotiations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 28, June)
The Act ended a lockout and prevented those teachers from participating in any work-to-rule campaign once back in the classroom, unilaterally imposed a mediation-arbitration scheme that does not meet requirements of independence and impartiality and brought additional restrictions on the collective bargaining rights of teachers.
Submitted by Education International (EI) on behalf of the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), the Ontario Teachers’ Federation (OTF) and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) (October 2003).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with ILO freedom of association principles.
 

Case No. 2277 against the Government of Alberta:

Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27, April)
The Act excluded nurse practitioners from unionization, terminated the right to strike for all health care workers and removed negotiated severance provisions from collective agreements.
Submitted by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) (June 2003).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with ILO freedom of association principles.
 

Case No. 2182 against the Government of Ontario:

Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2000 (Bill 139, December)
The Act facilitated decertification of workers’ organizations by requiring employers to post documents setting out the process.
Submitted by the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (March 2002).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 2145 against the Government of Ontario:

Back to School Act, 2000 (Bill 145, November)
The Act ended a lockout of teachers employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth (public) school board and imposed compulsory arbitration.
Submitted by the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), the Ontario Teachers’ Federation (OTF) and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) (July 2001).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 2119 against the Government of Ontario:

Education Accountability Act, 2000 (Bill 74, May)
The Act imposed a series of terms and conditions of employment on teachers and reduced the scope of matters open to collective bargaining.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) (March 2001).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 2083 against the Government of New Brunswick:

Public Service Labour Relations Act, 1973
The Act excluded certain workers from the definition of “employee” under the Act, namely those persons “not ordinarily required to work more than one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work” (section 1 (C.1)) and those “employed on a casual or temporary basis unless the person has been so employed for a continuous period of six months or more” (section 1(e)) thereby denying them the right to join unions of their own choosing or to bargain collectively.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) (April 2000).
 
These sections of the legislation were found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 2025 against the Government of Ontario:

Back to School Act, 1998 (Bill 62, September)
The Act ended a strike by teachers employed with eight publicly funded school boards, including seven separate school boards, imposed contractual terms and conditions and instituted a compulsory mediation-arbitration system presided over by government-appointed arbitrators.
Submitted by the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), the Ontario Teachers’ Federation (OTF) and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) (May 1999).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1999 against the Government of Saskatchewan:

Maintenance of Saskatchewan Power Corporation’s Operations Act, 1998 (Bill 65, October)
The Act ended a strike by employees at a provincial Crown Corporation, extended the expired collective agreement for three years and imposed annual wage increases of two percent.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (December 1998).
 
This legislation was found to violate the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1985 against the Government of Canada:

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997 (Bill C-24, December)
The Act ended a strike by postal workers, extended the expired collective agreement for three years, imposed pay awards and required the mediator-arbitrator appointed by the Minister to take Canada Post Corporation’s interests into account, including its viability and financial stability.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (September 1998).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1975 against the Government of Ontario:

Prevent Unionization with Respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 (Bill 22, December)
The Act prevented workers participating in mandatory “workfare” programs from joining a union, bargaining collectively and/or striking.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (July 1998).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1951 against the Government of Ontario:

Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997 (Bill 160, December)
The Act enabled government to regulate terms and conditions of employment for teachers and removed cost items, including preparation time and class size, from collective bargaining.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) (February 1998).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1943 against the Government of Ontario:

Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 (Bill 26, January)
Schedule Q to Bill 26 set out a number of criteria that arbitrators are required to consider in making a decision or award, including the following:
• the employer’s ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation;
• the extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of the decision or award, if the current funding and taxation levels are not increased.
Public Sector Transition Stability Act, 1997 (Bill 136, June)
Under Schedule A to Bill 136, an interested arbitrator is also required to take into account “best practices that ensure the delivery of quality and effective public services that are affordable for taxpayers”.
Social Contract Act, 1993 (Bill 48, July)
The Act provided for compensation reduction targets to be reached through eight sector-wide agreements covering all public sector workers in the province. Where agreements were not reached, employees earning over $30,000 per year were required to take unpaid leave days, equivalent to a 4.6 percent annual wage rollback; a three-year wage freeze was also imposed. 
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the Service Employees International Union, Local 204 (SEIU) and the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) (November 1997).
 
All three of these pieces of legislation were found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1928 against the Government of Manitoba:

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1996 (Bill 72, October)
The Act excluded certain working conditions for teachers in the public school system from collective bargaining and directed arbitrators to consider the school division or district’s ability to pay in making awards.
Submitted by the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) and the Manitoba Teachers’ Society (MTS) (May 1997).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1900 against the Government of Ontario:

Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendments Act, 1995 (Bill 7, October)
The Act denied access to collective bargaining and the right to strike to agricultural and domestic workers and specified professionals, removed a prohibition on the use of replacement workers during strikes and removed successor rights for Crown employees.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (August 1996).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1859 against the Government of Canada:

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 (Bill C-76, June)
The Act amended the Public Sector Compensation Act, 1991 affecting federal public service employees. It rescinded the bargaining agent’s right to negotiate job security and workforce provisions in collective agreements for a period of three years and extended the wage freeze for the fifth consecutive year.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) (October 1995).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1806 against the Government of Yukon:

Public Sector Compensation Act, 1994 (Bill C-18 June)
The Act extended the collective agreement of teachers employed in Yukon Territory for three years, suspended collective bargaining, froze compensation for the same period and further reduced wages by two percent effective January 1, 1995.
Submitted by the Yukon Teachers’ Association (YTA) (October 1994).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1802 against the Government of Nova Scotia:

Public Sector Unpaid Leave Act, 1993 (Bill 41, November)
The Act required government and other public sector employees to take mandatory unpaid leave equivalent to a two percent reduction in annual salary.
Compensation in the Public Sector Act, 1994 (Bill 52, June)
The Act imposed an immediate freeze on the wages and benefits of approximately 60,000 public sector employees; those employees making more than $25,000 a year were forced to take a permanent three percent wage rollback. It also extended collective agreements for three years, suspending the right to bargain, strike or arbitrate over changes to the agreement for the same period.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and the Nova Scotia Confederation of University Faculty Associations (NSCUFA) (October 1994).
 
These two pieces of legislation were found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case Nos. 1801 / 1779 against the Government of Prince Edward Island:

Public Sector Pay Reduction Act, 1994 (Bill 70, May)
The Act suspended collective bargaining for all public sector employees on all monetary terms in the public sector until May 1995 and rolled back wages by 7.5 percent on salaries above $28,000 and 3.75 percent on salaries below $28,000 for all public sector employees.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) and various national and local unions (October / June 1994).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1800 against the Government of Canada:

Budget Implementation Act, 1994 (Bill C-17, June)
The Act extended the wage freeze for federal public service employees for two years, suspended provisions regarding pay increments and excluded all forms of collective bargaining by again amending the Public Sector Compensation Act, 1991.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) (October 1994).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1758 against the Government of Canada:

Government Expenditure Restraint Act, 1993 (Bill C-113, April)
The Act extended the wage freeze for federal public service employees and suspended collective bargaining for a further two years beyond the one-year suspension contained in the Public Sector Compensation Act, 1991.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) (February 1994).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case Nos. 1750 / 1749 / 1748 / 1747 / 1733 against the Government of Quebec:

An Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector and the municipal sector, 1993 (Bill 102, June)
The Act imposed a two-year wage freeze on public sector and municipal employees and compelled employees to take leave days equivalent to one percent of salary.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CTC), the Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ) and the Quebec Central Teachers’ Union (CEQ) (December 1993); the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CNTU), the Quebec Provincial Civil Service Union (SFPQ) and various other trade union organizations in Quebec (September 1993).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1743 against the Government of Quebec:

An Act to amend the Labour Code of Quebec, 1994 (May)
The amendments to the imposed Act allowed the parties to negotiate collective agreements for longer terms (5, 10, 20 years, etc.) and increased the time periods in which another union may apply for a certification to between 5 ½ and 6 ½ years from the date of the renewal of the agreement.
Submitted by the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CNTU) (December 1993).
 
This legislation was found not to constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1735 against the Government of Ontario:

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act, 1993 (Bill 80, December)
The amendments to the Act gave power to the Labour Relations Board to review and overturn decisions of international unions in the building and construction industry regarding union locals, including decisions involving the removal of union officers.
Submitted by the Building and Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO) and the Canadian Federation of Labour (CFL) (September 1993).
 
This legislation was found not to constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1722 against the Government of Ontario:

Social Contract Act, 1993 (Bill 48, July)
The Act provided for compensation reduction targets to be reached through eight sector-wide agreements covering all public sector workers in the province. Where agreements were not reached, employees earning over $30,000 per year were required to take unpaid leave days, equivalent to a 4.6 percent annual wage rollback; a three-year wage freeze was also imposed. 
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) (June 1993).
 
This legislation was found not to constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1715 against the Government of Manitoba:

Public Sector Reduced Workweek and Compensation Management Act, 1993 (Bill 22, April)
The Act reduced annual compensation of all public employees by approximately four percent per year during the term of existing collective agreements by forcing them to take mandatory layoffs of up to a maximum of 15 days.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (May 1993).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1681 against the Government of Canada:

Thunder Bay Grain Handling Operations Act, 1991 (Bill C-37, October)
The Act ended a nine-day strike by approximately 900 grain handlers, extended the collective agreement and provided for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Transportation
-Communications Union (TCU) (November 1992).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1670 against the Government of Canada:

 Public Service Reform Act, 1991 (Bill C-26, June)
The Act expanded the category of federal government employees occupying managerial and confidential positions who were excluded from unionization. The Act also allowed Cabinet to suspend strikes during an election period and enabled management to hire more casual workers and contract out a larger amount of work.
Submitted by the Economists, Sociologists and Statisticians Association (ESSA) (September 1992).
 
This legislation was found to be in partial compliance with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case Nos. 1624 / 1606 against the Government of Nova Scotia:

Compensation Restraint in the Public Sector Act, 1991 (Bill 160, May)
The Act extended existing collective agreements of public sector employees for two years and imposed a two-year wage freeze.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) and the Nova Scotia Teachers’ Union (NSTU) (February 1992).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association. 
 

Case No. 1616 against the Government of Canada:

Public Sector Compensation Act, 1991 (Bill C-29, October)
The Act ended a strike by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), extended existing contracts for a two-year period with no wage increase in the first year and a three percent wage increase in the second year and suspended collective bargaining for a three-year period.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) (December 1991).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1607 against the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador:

 Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector Act, 1991 (Bill 16, April)
The Act suspended collective bargaining for approximately 25,000 public sector employees, imposed a one-year wage freeze and prohibited retroactive pay equity adjustments.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (October 1991).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1605 against the Government of New Brunswick:

Expenditure Management Act, 1991 (Bill 73, May)
The Act provided for a one-year wage freeze for public sector employees and imposed restrictions on collective bargaining for the same period.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (October 1991).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1604 against the Government of Manitoba:

Public Sector Compensation Management Act, 1991 (Bill 70, July)
The Act extended collective agreements of all public sector employees for one year.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (October 1991).
 
This legislation was found to be in partial compliance with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case Nos. 1603 / 1587 against the Government of British Columbia:

Compensation Fairness Act, 1991 (Bill 82, March)
The Act allowed for the determination of wages for public sector employees by the employer and a government-appointed Commissioner, on the basis of “ability to pay”, with reference to “any fiscal or financial policies adopted by the government”. The Commissioner was given broad powers to override existing collective agreements, impose wage settlements, dictate the manner of calculation of compensation and impose enforcement orders not subject to appeal. 
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (October 1991).
 
The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association ceased to examine these two complaints following the repeal of the Compensation Fairness Act by a newly elected provincial government in 1992.
 

Case No. 1601 against the Government of Quebec:

An Act ensuring continuity of electrical service by Hydro-Québec, 1990 (Bill 58, May)
The Act ended a strike of 15,700 electrical workers and imposed an 18-month collective agreement on them.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) (August 1991).
 
The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association ceased examination of this complaint after the parties freely negotiated a collective agreement.
 

Case No. 1547 against the Government of British Columbia:

University Act of British Columbia, 1977
Section 80 of the Act removed university faculty from the section of the Industrial Relations which prevented university faculty from exercising their right to organize into a union, if they so wished, under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.
Submitted by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) (September 1990).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1526 against the Government of Quebec:

An Act respecting the maintenance of essential services in the health and social services sector, 1986 (Bill 160, November)
The Act ordered employees in the health and social services sector to return to work after a 24-hour strike and imposed a collective agreement on them.
Submitted by the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CNTU) and the Federation      of Quebec Professional Unions of Nurses (FQPUN) (March 1990).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1451 against the Government of Canada:

 Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987 (Bill C-86, October)
The legislation ended a seven-day strike by postal workers and prohibited further strikes for the duration of the imposed settlement.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (April 1988).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1438 against the Government of Canada:

 Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1987 (Bill C-85, August)
The Act ended a five-day strike by railway workers and ordered employees to return to work, extended the expired collective agreement and provided for arbitration.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (February 1988).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1430 against the Government of British Columbia:

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19, June)
The Act limited successor rights, restricted the definition of “related employer”, established an Industrial Relations Council (IRC) through which the government could declare workers essential and limited the right to strike and secondary picketing.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (October 1987).
 
This legislation was found to be in partial compliance with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1394 against the Government of Quebec:

 An Act respecting the resumption of construction work, 1986 (Bill 106, June)
The Act ordered construction workers back to work, banned any further strike action for three years and imposed mandatory mediation.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (February 1987).
 
The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association ceased examination of this complaint after the parties freely negotiated a collective agreement.
 

Case No. 1356 against the Government of Quebec:

 An Act respecting the process of negotiation of collective agreements in the public and para public sectors, 1985 (Bill 37, June)
The Act narrowed the scope of collective bargaining for workers employed in the education and social affairs sector and government agencies, empowered government to impose wage rates in the second and third year of collective agreements and restricted the right to strike.
Submitted by the Quebec Central Teachers’ Union (CEQ) (September 1985).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case Nos. 1350 / 1329 / 1235 / 1173 against the Government of British Columbia:

Education (Interim) Finance Act, 1982 (Bill 27, June)
The Act enabled the government to block wage increases previously agreed upon through negotiations between teachers and public school boards. 
Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11, July)
The Act changed the wage increase guideline under Bill 28 for approximately 220,000 public sector workers to a range for total compensation and established a Compensation Commissioner with power to decide wage increases based solely on considerations of the employer’s “ability to pay”.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the World Confederation of Organizations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) (December 1982, September 1983, April 1985 and October 1985).
 
These two pieces of legislation (the subject of four complaints to the ILO) were found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1260 against the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador:

Public Service (Collective Bargaining) Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 59, April)
The Act enabled the government to designate up to 49 percent of a public service bargaining unit as essential service employees in the event of a strike and broadened the management designation, resulting in the exclusion of 2,000 employees from unionization.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (February 1984).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case Nos. 1247 / 1234 against the Government of Alberta:

Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 44, June)
The Act eliminated the right to strike for firefighters and hospital employees, imposed compulsory arbitration and required arbitrators to consider government policy, the employer’s ability to pay and non-union wages. It also allowed suspension of the collection of dues if employees participated in illegal strike action.
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (February 1984) and the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) (September 1983).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1172 against the Government of Ontario:

Inflation Restraint Act, 1982 (Bill 179, September)
The Act imposed maximum wage increases of five percent on approximately 500,000 public sector workers and extended their collective agreements for one year.
Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, 1983 (Bill 111, December)
The Act continued the wage controls of Bill 179 (see above) on approximately 500,000 public sector workers for another year, required arbitrators to consider the employer’s “ability to pay” in the arbitration process and made all collective agreements subject to review by a legislated Restraint Board. 
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (November 1982).      
 
These two pieces of legislation were found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1171 against the Government of Quebec:

An Act respecting remuneration in the public sector, 1982 (Bill 70, June)
The Act imposed an average wage reduction on approximately 300,000 public sector workers of 19.5 percent for the period between January 1 and March 31, 1983, removed the right to strike and extended collective agreements due to expire.
Submitted by the Federation of Associations of University Lecturers, the Union of Government Salaried Staff, the Union of University Employees, the Federation of Nursing Occupation Unions, the Quebec Provincial Civil Service Union (SFPQ), the Quebec Central Teachers Union (CEQ), the World Federation of Teachers Unions (WFTU), the World Labour Confederation and the World Confederation of Organizations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) (November 1982).
 
This legislation was found not to comply with the principles of freedom of association.
 

Case No. 1147 against the Government of Canada:

 Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1982 (Bill C-124, June)
The Act legislated away collective bargaining rights of approximately 200,000 public service employees for two years, imposed maximum wage increases of six percent and five percent for a minimum of two years and rolled back signed agreements with increases above those amounts. 
Submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPS) and several other unions.
 
This legislation was found to be in partial compliance with the principles of freedom of association. 

labourrights.ca is developed and co-sponsored by the National Union of Public and General Employees and the   United Food and Commercial Workers Canada