The Ontario government is accused of trampling on the rights of public workers and legislating away their Charter rights. Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy asserts that the government hasn’t done anything wrong. At issue is Bill 124 which enacted the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act. Passed in November 2019, Bill 124 changed the rules as Ontario’s education unions were heading into collective bargaining.
Bill 124 imposes salary and compensation caps for unionized and non-unionized public employees in Ontario over a moderated three-year period. Its stated purpose is “to ensure that increases in public sector compensation reflect the fiscal situation of the Province, are consistent with the principles of responsible fiscal management and protect the sustainability of public services”. Outraged, the heads of Ontario’s four biggest education unions say that the Bill “seeks to unilaterally impose limits on the ability of workers to negotiate compensation” and that the government is “turning its back on the collective bargaining process”.
Governments imposing wage and bargaining limitations on its workers is not new and precedents will be set in the court challenges to Bill 124. There is a long history of Government Policy as it relates to economic conditions and recent historical precedents are available to be considered. In the early 1980s, in a time of serious economic downturn, the federal Liberal government legislated wage controls, suspended collective bargaining rights and, in some cases, legislated away an essential worker’s right to strike. Six provincial governments took notice and followed with similarly restrictive legislation of their own. The Conservative Party was elected in 1984 and continued legislative control of public sector union bargaining actions. By 1992 the recession had made a lasting impact and legislation became more intrusive to the bargaining process. Governments, including Ontario’s, legislated wage controls. Ontario’s NDP government legislated the Social Contract Act in 1993 imposing a wage freeze and unpaid leave to public employees. In the last two decades different Ontario governments have had to engage in the collective bargaining process with their employees and have both won and lost cases of alleged bargaining in bad faith and attempts to revoke public employees’ Charter freedoms. Most notably the Ontario Liberal Party’s Bill 115 imposed a wage cap and restrictions on strike activity for public employees (teachers) which the Ontario Superior court found to substantially interfere with workers’ collective bargaining rights under the Charter.
Is the Ontario government trampling public employees’ rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? At least 15 of Ontario’s largest unions think so and are launching court battles against the government. They argue that the Ontario government has an obligation to negotiate wages at the bargaining table and not unilaterally impose them through restrictive legislation. Peter Bethlenfalvy maintains that the legislation was not passed in bad faith and that the proposed wage cap does not substantially interfere with workers’ Charter rights to association and collective bargaining. Legal experts suggest that Bill 124 has been drafted with the successful, precedent setting challenge of Bill 115 in mind. Kevin Banks, who serves as director of the Queen’s University Centre for Law in the Contemporary Workplace, suggests that the government “have learned from some of the constitutional cases that have taken place since Bill 115, in that they’ve structured the legislation so as to permit bargaining to continue with respect to every issue except the one that they want to control”.
Course Article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/teachers-unions-launch-action-1.5393168
Sarah Northrup 
Hey Sarah!
After reading your post I think the discussion about unions is an important one to have, especially now with the recent teacher strikes. I appreciate the thought you put in to outlining the history of how the unions and workers were restricted by the government. The article you referenced does a good job of outlining the changes the bill will implement and the groups of people it will impact. While I tend to agree with you that it should not be acceptable for the government to suppress unions I think that there should be a better alternative to strikes. While they can be an effective bargaining tool unions in the public sector can significantly disrupt thousands of people, including those who support them. Do you think there would be a better alternative to strikes?
LikeLike
HI Nicholas,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. The conundrum in the public sector is that labour action doesn’t hurts the employers reputation more than it does their bottom line. The disruption that you mention is heartbreaking when you think about education and the children who rely on their school as a place of safety or nutrition and is upsetting when you consider that they may not complete their grade with the knowledge that they need to move forward.
That said, I don’t know what the solution is. My experience with collective bargaining has been in private sector where profits, reputation and customer dissatisfaction aren’t political issues, but matters of business survival.
You pose an interesting point, I wonder if anyone can think of a better alternative.
Thank you!
Sarah
LikeLike
Hi Sarah,
I thought your post was really informative and highlights a major situation in our society that has occurred in the last few months. The history you highlighted in your post provides context for how long government policy has taken advantage of public employees. As, Nicholas said with all the issues and current situation with the teacher’s unions this topic is one that is extremely relevant. The collective bargaining process is a crucial aspect to a public employee’s contract. One of the main concerns during the process is how much workers will be paid and another key component is what type of benefits the workers will receive (Pritchard, 2016). In addition, a worker’s rights will be negotiated as well (Pritchard, 2016). These key areas that have been negatively affected due to the Bill 124 is why I believe something needs to be done to address this issue. I agree with Nicholas that strikes are not the most optimal solution for this type of situation due to the amount of people that get affected. Something I was wondering was what are the main reasons government impose Bills like Bill 124 and what would they gain?
References:
Pritchard, G. (2016, October 26). What Are the Issues That Are Mandatory Components of Collective Bargaining? Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/issues-mandatory-components-collective-bargaining-78213.html
LikeLike
Hi MJ,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment and sources. The government’s bill imposes fiscal limitations on the entire public sector. The PC party has stated their concern for the large deficit and capping wage increases is one of their strategies for reducing the debt.
I hope that answers you question!
Sarah
LikeLike