CBC is reporting that the federal court has ordered a second
arbitrator in the Canada Post dispute to step down. The arbitrator was
appointed to the federal government as part of back-to-work legislation enacted
last year.
The first arbitrator was tossed after it turned out he wasn’t
bilingual and had little labour relations expertise. The second arbitrator was
tossed because he acted as a prosecutor for the employer during a pay equity
dispute (1998-2003) and had long-standing ties to the Conservative Party,
including being president of the Quebec wing and running as a candidate. This creates
the appearance (if not the fact) of bias, thereby undermining the notion of
neutral, third-party arbitration.
Appointing arbitrators who are unqualified and/or create the
appearance of bias brings further disrepute upon the federal government’s
aggressively anti-union approach to labour relations. While I’m no great fan of
the court system when it comes to protecting the rights of workers, I am
interested to see what the long-term effect of such pro-employer government
policy has on the jurisprudence.
Specifically, I wonder whether pro-employer policies will
make the court system (and particularly the Supreme Court) more sympathetic to
the arguments of labour and, perhaps, result in a further expansion of the freedom
of association duties of the state under the Charter?
-- Bob Barnetson
No comments:
Post a Comment