View cases - Stewart McKelvey

discuss collective bargaining. The majority in Health Services cites an extended passage from anarticle by B. Gernigon, A. Odero and H. Guido, “ILO principles concerning collectivebargaining” (2000), 139 Intern’l Lab. Rev. 33, to elaborate on the scope of protection forcollective bargaining under international law. However, in that article Gernigon et al. areactually discussing the scope of ILO Convention (No. 98) concerning the application of theprinciples of the right to organise and bargain collectively, 96 U.N.T.S. 257 (“Convention No.2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)98”), which deals more specifically with collective bargaining. As my colleagues acknowledge,Canada has not ratified Convention (No. 98). This means that Canada has no obligations underthat Convention as outlined in the ILO Constitution: see Constitution of the International LabourOrganisation, Art. 19(5)(e); B. A. Langille, “Can We Rely on the ILO?” (2006-2007), 13C.L.E.L.J. 273. It is therefore inappropriate to interpret the scope of Canada’s obligations on thebasis of that Convention.[249] Second, even if Convention No. 98 were applicable to Canada, the majority inHealth Services would still have erred in relying on that Convention to constitutionalize aversion of collective bargaining that includes a duty to bargain in good faith. While ConventionNo. 98 provides protection for a process of collective bargaining, it conceives of collectivebargaining as being a process of “voluntary negotiation” that is fundamentally distinct from themodel of collective bargaining incorporated in the Wagner model: see ILO Convention No. 98,Art. 4. More specifically, Convention No. 98 does not contemplate the imposition of a duty onparties to bargain in good faith: Langille, “Can We Rely on the ILO?”, at pp. 291-92. Indeed,Gernigon et al. express this point in the article relied on by the majority in Health Services: