We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
Canadian experience in governmental compulsion in labour relations has now extended over a period of half a century. The degree of compulsion has fluctuated in relation to changing circumstances. Periods of crisis have usually called forth intensified and extended government interference and restraint on one or both of the parties to the dispute. The termination or decline of tension has not, however, resulted necessarily in a reversion to the status quo ante. Indeed there has been a tendency for legislatures to attempt to profit by experience and redraft the law so as to avoid, if possible, the repetition of similar unhappy episodes of destructive or disruptive conflict. This has been an additive process and has produced a body of law governing the behaviour of labour and management which can quite properly be described as a Canadian labour relations code. Parallel with the development of law there has been a construction and elaboration of institutions of labour, industry, and government which function in the field of labour relations. The Canadian pattern, while exhibiting similarities with those found in other industrial countries, has certain important features which render it somewhat different. These special features have had a pervading effect on the character of the industrial relationship, and have drastically influenced collective bargaining as a dynamic process. There is evidence that the imposition of the labour relations code has failed in some degree to produce the expected results, even to the extent of defeating the achievement of the objectives it was developed to accomplish.
This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Toronto, June 1, 1955.
1 Sidney, and Webb, Beatrice, “Men's Statement Price” in their History of Trade Unionism (London, 1920), 94.Google Scholar
2 Brooks, George, “Opportunities and Limitations of Collective Bargaining” in McGill Uni-versity, Industrial Relations Centre, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference, 1954, 70–9.Google Scholar Also, Leiserson, William M., “Constitutional Government in American Industries” in American Economic Association, Papers and Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting, Atlantic City, Dec., 1920, 56–79.Google Scholar
3 There are many other features of greater or less importance, and there exist numerous deviations in the various provincial jurisdictions, but for the purpose of this paper the above list is adequate. Additional references will be made to specific points later in the discussion.
4 The same right is accorded to employers who are guaranteed the right to join employers' associations.
5 Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. R.S.C. 1952, c. 152, s. 3(1).
6 Ibid., s. 4(1).
7 Exception is made to permit payment of employees or trade union representatives engaged in union business.
8 R.S.C. 1952 c. 152, ss. 2(1)(r), 7(1), 9, and 61 (1).
9 Ibid., ss. (12), (14), (15). Provincial laws are based on the same principle of compulsory negotiation.
10 Ibid., s. (21).
11 University of Pennsylvania, Staff Members Symposium, “The Strike as a Socio-Economic Institution” in Industrial Relations Research Association, Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting, Chicago, Dec., 1950, 297–316.Google Scholar
12 This compulsory arbitration of “rights” disputes is not complete. Strikes are permitted during the term of an agreement in Saskatchewan and Quebec. In the latter province these disputes must be dealt with either by private machinery or as provided in the Quebec Trades Disputes Act. The form of compulsion is preserved in the procedure but the award is not binding. In practice, the parties with few exceptions do abide by the award and do not avail themselves of the privilege of a work stoppage to force a decision on disputes during the period of the agreement.
13 Except in Quebec and Saskatchewan as noted above.
14 The right to stop work is restricted much more than this statement would suggest. This restriction is effected in two ways. First, the law usually excludes certain classes of employees from the privileges of the labour relations acts. Certification is denied them, and while they are not thereby excluded from attempting to win recognition from the employer, the fact that they cannot win it from the government board established to grant recognition seriously weakens their position vis-à-vis the employer. Generally excluded are managerial and professional personnel, domestics, agricultural labourers, and persons employed in a confidential capacity. Secondly, the law specifically forbids work stoppages in certain occupations considered to be so important to the public that a work stoppage would create a state of emergency. The patterns in this regard differ across the country and are somewhat confused. However, civil servants, employees of Crown companies and municipalities, members of the teaching profession, and others are denied the right to strike in some or all parts of the country. There is gradually developing a structure of public institutions based on specific laws designed to take these classes of employment out of the areas where strikes are permitted and to substitute public bodies and standards for more normal collective bargaining. For a study of this problem in civic employment see Frankel, S. J. and Pratt, R. C., Municipal Labour Relations in Canada (Montreal, 1954).Google Scholar
15 Conciliation Act, C.S. 1900, c. 24.
16 Canada, Dept. of Labour, Government Intervention in Labour Disputes in Canada, Industrial Relations Series, Bulletin no. 11 (Ottawa, 1931), 12.Google Scholar
17 Canada, Dept. of Labour, Report of the Department of Labour for the Year Ending June 30, 1903 (Ottawa, 1904), 59.Google Scholar
18 Acland, F. A., “Canadian Legislation Concerning Industrial Disputes,” Canadian Law Times, XXXVI, 03, 1916, 210 Google Scholar, (republished in Labour Gazette, XVI, 04, 1916).Google Scholar
19 Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King.
20 Canada, Dept. of Labour, Report of the Department of Labour for the Year Ending June 30, 1903, 59.Google Scholar
21 Acland, , “Canadian Legislation Concerning Industrial Disputes,” 211.Google Scholar
22 The Railway trackmen's protracted strike of 1901 on the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is noteworthy that somewhat similar principles had been introduced in 1898 in the United States in the Erdman Act, which was applicable to the railroads of that country, and was passed at the insistence of railway unions whose main interest was in the anti-yellow-dog provisions.
23 Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, C.S. 1907, c. 20, s. 25.
24 Ibid., s. 26.
25 Ibid., s. 2(c).
26 Labour Gazette, XVIII, 07, 1918, 616.Google Scholar
27 Armstrong, Donald, Third Party Intervention in the Alberta Coal Industry (manuscript in preparation for publication by McGill University, Industrial Relations Centre).Google Scholar Selekman, Ben M., Postponing Strikes: A Study of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of Canada (New York, 1927), 297–8.Google Scholar
28 Privy Council Order no. 680, March 23, 1916.
29 P.C. 1743, July 11, 1918.
30 P.C. 2525, Oct. 11, 1918.
31 The Board of Adjustment No. 1 was established by agreement of the parties to the dispute under the influence of the Minister of Labour. See “Memorandum of Agreement Creating Canadian Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1,” Labour Gazette, XVIII, 11, 1918, 981–3.Google Scholar
32 Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, C.S. 1907, c. 20, s. 63(a) and (b).
33 Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider et al.
32 Grauer, A. E., Labour Legislation: A Study Prepared for the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (Ottawa, 1939), 80–92.Google Scholar
36 Canada, Dept. of Labour., Wartime Orders in Council Affecting Labour (rev. ed., Ottawa, 1943), 7–9.Google Scholar
37 Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, C.S. 1907, c. 20, s. 16(3), and in amended form R.S.C. 1927, c. 112, s. 17 (d).
38 An Act to Provide for Collective Bargaining, Statutes of Ontario 1943, c. 4.
39 Selekman, , Postponing Strikes, 53.Google Scholar
40 Labour Gazette, VII, 04, 1907, 1108–9.Google Scholar
41 Letter to Mr. King from Committee of Six on Behalf of the Workmen on Strike, Nov. 23, 1906. In Labour Gazette, VII, 12, 1906, 655–6.Google Scholar An earlier letter, July 28, 1906, from the company to the committee of workmen clearly shows strong open shop sentiment. Ibid., 650–1.
42 United States, Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, I (Washington, 1916), 713–18, 732–8.Google Scholar
43 Ibid., 714, 716.
44 Ibid., 715–16.
45 Ibid., 736–7.
46 Grauer, , Labour Legislation, 88.Google Scholar
47 Canada, Dept. of Labour, Report of the Department of Labour for the Year Ending June 30, 1944 (Ottawa, 1944), 38, Table 5.Google Scholar
48 Canada, National War Labour Board, 1943, Proceedings, Hearings on Labour Relations and Wage Conditions in Canada (Ottawa, 1943), 118.Google Scholar
49 Ibid., 423.
50 Ibid., 448.
51 Ibid., 272–7.
52 Ibid., 167.
53 Ibid., 387.
54 Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation, “Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting, Ottawa, 1954.” (These Proceedings are not available to the public. Copies of the address referred to may be procured from the author.)
55 Required by law in civic employment in some jurisdictions. Also relevant is the de facto compulsion in the Canadian railway situation.
56 Chamberlain, Neil W., Social Responsibility and Strikes (New York, 1953).Google Scholar
