C.S.N.+v.+Québec


 * __ CSN c. Québec (Procurer general), 2007 QCCS 5513 __** **__ Facts: __** · QC Govt introduced Bill 30 to completely restructure the collective bargaining regime and union accredition regulations in the health and social services sector (ie: reuduced the number of certain bargaining units; merged units of professionals who had previously not been under the same bargaining unit; mandated that certain subjects be negotiated at the local level ) · The Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux (large federation of trade unions in QC) challenges the constitutionality of the Bill, arguing that it violates s.2d freedom of assoc.; s.2b freedom of expression; and s.15 equality rights; and right to just and reasonable working conditions. · Govt argues that Bill 30 was introduced to address certain problems in the collective bargaining regime: o overlapping bargaining units o instances of the same job title in different bargaining units, but affiliated o with same union o OR the same job title, in different bargining units, but affiliated with different union o large bargining units that encompass the same job titles, but affiliated with different unions o des accreditations differentes, visant des titres d’emploi exclusives les uns des autres dans une meme famille d’emplois o mutually exlcusive accreditations · Plaintiffs argue 2 major problems with the Bill : i) predetermines the number and professional categories of the bargaining units; (merges certain groups of professionals together under the same bargaining unit who have opposing interests, don’t want to be united—ie: nurses and auxiliary nurses) ii) imposes obligation to negotiate certain subjects at the local level (rather than provincial)  __ Concerns raised by: __ Dieticians & Nutritionists: · Union (SPDQ) created in 1970s because these employees felt their qualifications weren’t well known and that they were victims of negative prejudices · Bill 30 would abolish this union, incorporating dieticians and nutritionists under ‘category 4’, in which they would represent only 0.03% of the employees in this category (thus, they are worried that their interests won’t be as well defended) Inhalotherapeutes: · have always preferred an independent union that represents exclusively their interests, but Bill 30 would regroup them under category 1 with nurses (so going from a union of 2500 ppl, to 60,000) Nurses: · have history of fighting for an independent union exclusively representing their interests; but Under Bil 30, would have to regroup with professionals who don’t share the same views/interests Auxiliary Nurses: forced to unite under the same bargaining unit as nurses, who have historically undermined their qualifications (ie: excluded them from emergency rooms etc.)  **__ Ratio: __** The forced union of professionals with opposing interests under a single collective bargaining unit, against their will, may constitute a violation of the right to collective bargaining protected by s.2d of the Charter  **__ Analysis: __** __ Issues/Holding: __ i) What standard of judicial review is applicable? [//Given that it’s a constitutional challenge that’s raised, the standard is ‘correctness’]// ii) Was the bill adopted in violation of fundamental constitutional precepts? – //NO// iii) Did the Bill violate s.2d freedom of association? – //YES (infringes on right to collective bargaining)// iv) Did the Bill violate s.2b freedom of expression? –NO v) Did the Bill violate s.15 equality? – NO vi) Did the Bill violate the right to just and reasonable working conditions (guaranteed by art. 46 of the QC Charter)? - NO  __ Re: s.2d Freedom of Association: __ · ** Bill violates s.2d because it substantially interferes with collective bargaining right. [Application of BC Health Services Test ** ]  (1) Does the measure affect aspects that are really important to the collective bargaining process? à YES, substantially interferes  (2) In what manner does the measure impact on the collective right to good faith negotiation and consultation?. à negatively impacts right to bargain in good faith  o The legislator ignores historical context (ie-fact that certain professions have preferred to est. independent unions that represent their interests exclusively) and forces people who have opposing employment interests to group together in negotiating work conditions o ** Govt didn’t consult with unions to discuss issue of merging employees of different categories into one union ** · s.2d violation justified by s.1? –NO! o objective of the govt was substantial/important; **but fails minimal impairment and proportionality tests** ( fails to demonstrate that these measures were a minimal impairment of the right and that the beneficial effects were proportional to the adverse effects)  · **Remedy?** à Court rejects CSN’s request to reinstore the previous bargaining units; says its up to **govt to amend law in accordance with principles of freedom of assoc.**  __ Re: s.2b Freedom of Expression __ · Plaintiffs argue that the law violated the freedom of the employees to express their will to unite under an association of their choice · Court says this case is fundamentally about freedom of assoc. and not freedom of expression because the **employees are still free to express themselves, even if its within the context of new bargaining units, at the local level**  __ Re: s.15 Equality right __  · Plaintiffs argue that the law is discriminatory because it deprives employees of the health and social services sector of a general collective bargaining regime applicable to workers under the QC Labour Code; and that this differential treatment is based on sex (given that women represent 79% of the sector) and occupational status. · ** Court relies on BC Health Services decision to argue that the differential treatment is not based on an enumerated/analogous ground (because law applies to male and females equally; and occupational status is not recognized as an analogous ground) ** __ Re: Right to just and reasonable working conditions (art. 46 QC Charter) __ · Art. 46 obliges govt to take measures to protect these rights (re: good work conditions), but it doesn’t grant judicial control of these measures Also, there is no evidence to suggest that employees of the health and social services sector work in injust/unreasonable working conditions that don’t respect their health/security