View cases - Stewart McKelvey

. . . the state must not substantially interfere with the ability of a union to exertmeaningful influence over working conditions through a process of collectivebargaining conducted in accordance with the duty to bargain in good faith. Thus theemployees’ right to collective bargaining imposes corresponding duties on theemployer. It requires both employer and employees to meet and to bargain in goodfaith, in the pursuit of a common goal of peaceful and productive accommodation.In fact, the majority went so far as to say that “the duty to consult and negotiate in good faith” is“the fundamental precept of collective bargaining” (para. 97).2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)[169] The decision in Health Services purported to impose two limitations on this right.First, the right was said not to cover all aspects of “collective bargaining”, as that term isunderstood in the statutory labour relations regimes based upon the Wagner model that are inplace across the country. The Wagner model refers to Canadian variants of the National LaborRelations Act, 49 Stat. 449 (1935) (“Wagner Act”), which was enacted into law in the UnitedStates during the Depression. By the end of the 1930s, most Canadian provinces had passedlegislation incorporating the main objectives of the Wagner Act. The Wagner model has fourlegislative hallmarks: explicit recognition of the right of employees to belong to a trade union oftheir choice; protections against employer coercion or interference with organizing activities,known as unfair labour practices provisions; a duty upon employers to bargain in good faith withtheir employees’ unions; and a dispute resolution mechanism for resolving impasses: see G. W.Adams, Canadian Labour Law (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), at p. 1-11.[170] Second, it was said not to be aimed at securing a particular outcome in a labourdispute, or guaranteeing access to any particular statutory scheme: see Health Services, at para.