PSAC+v.+Canada

Case: Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424 || · The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) is a union representing approximately 168,000 employees of the federal government and its agencies. · The Act applied only to the federal public sector employees (s. 3) and employees of certain railway companies (s. 3(4) (railway not represented in this appeal).  ·  It defined a compensation plan as provisions for determining and administering compensation, including provisions in collective agreements.  ·  __The Act automatically extended compensation plans in force on__ __June 29, 1982__ __for a period of two years and fixed the wage increases to 6 per cent in the first year and 5 per cent for the second__. · For the groups not subject to a compensation plan on June 29, 1982, the Act extended the previous compensation plan for one year and provided for an increase of 9 per cent for that year. · At the end of that period, these plans were extended for a further two years with the "6 and 5" increases. · During the period of extension, the compensation plans covered by the Act (s. 6(1)(a)) and those collective agreements or arbitral awards which included such a compensation plan (s. 6(1)(b)) continued to be in force without change, __thus precluding collective bargaining on compensatory and non-compensatory components of collective agreements__. · Under s. 16, the Governor in Council was empowered to terminate the application of the Act in respect of an employee or a group of employees to which the Act applied. · The Federal Court, at trial and on appeal, held that the Act violated neither the right of freedom of association in s. 2(d) of the Charter (because s.2(d) was not held to include the right to bargain collectively or strike) nor the right to equality before the law in s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. [1] Does the //Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act// violates s. 2(d) of the Charter? **NO** [2] Does the Act violate s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights? Dickson CJC (dissenting in part): · Section 2(d) o Alberta Reference § s.2(d) Freedom of association in the labour relations context includes: · The freedom to participate in determining conditions of work through: · [1] Collective bargaining · [2] The right to strike. §<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> The //Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act//, by automatically extending the terms and conditions of collective agreements and arbitral awards and by fixing wage increases for a two year period, infringes the freedom of public sector employees to engage in collective bargaining. o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Furthermore, a union has no effective bargaining power under s.7 or s.16 since it lacks the legal capacity to withdraw services collectively or even to remit a dispute to binding arbitration. o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Without the capacity to strike or to submit a dispute to binding arbitration, employees seeking non compensatory amendments under s. 7, or employees requesting the Governor in Council to suspend the operation of the Act are not in an effective position to bargain. Section 1 ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> The objective of reducing inflation was, at the time of passage of the Act, of sufficient importance for the purpose of s. 1 of the Charter, but not all the means chosen to achieve that objective were "reasonable and demonstrably justified". ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Justifiable: o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Control wage demands and production costs in its fight against inflation justified the suspension of collective bargaining on compensation issues, including non pecuniary benefits. o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> The temporary suspension of collective bargaining on compensation issues was a justifiable infringement of freedom of association having regard to the third limb of the proportionality test. ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Not-Justifiable: o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Parliament’s claim that they are just another employer. §<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> The gov’t plays an important leadership role, and there is a psychological component of that role in relation to economic matters. §<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Rightly or wrongly, the public sector is perceived to occupy a central role in defining the parameters of negotiations between employer and employee. §<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> By enacting its "6 and 5" programme, Parliament intended to send a dramatic message conveying its resolve to fight inflation. o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> But the removal of the right to strike over non-compensatory issues as well as the right to submit such disputes to binding arbitration was not a justifiable infringement of the freedom of association. §<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> __The effective nullification of the employees' ability to bargain collectively on non-compensatory issues represented a profound intrusion into the associational freedoms of workers, and one which bore no apparent connection to the objectives of an inflation restraint programme.__ o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> The Act swept away virtually the full range of collective bargaining activities of federal employees, seemingly without any thought as to whether such draconian measures were necessary. o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> It follows that the Act, by means of s. 6(1)(b), over reached the otherwise acceptable justification offered for the Act's impairment of public sector workers' freedom of association. **Therefore, s. 6(1)(b) is of no force and effect**. The remainder of the Act with the exception of s. 3(4) upon which no opinion was expressed was justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. McIntyre J: ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">  For the reasons I expressed in the Alberta Reference, the //Public Sector Compensation Restraint// Act did not interfere with collective bargaining so as to infringe the Charter guarantee of freedom of association. ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> My finding in the Alberta Reference __does not__, however, __preclude the possibility that other aspects of collective bargaining may receive Charter protection under the guarantee of freedom of association__. o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> The Act did not restrict the role of the trade union as the exclusive agent of the employees. o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> It required the employer to continue to bargain and deal with the unionized employees through the Union. o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> It also permitted continued negotiations between the parties with respect to changes in the terms and conditions of employment which did not involve compensation. ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> The effect of the Act was simply to deny the use of the economic weapons of strikes and lockouts for a two year period. **This may limit the bargaining power of trade union but it did not violate s. 2(d) of the Charter which does not include a constitutional guarantee of a right to strike.** Le Dain (+ Beetz and La Forest JJ): ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> For the reasons I expressed in the Alberta Reference I am of the opinion that the guarantee of freedom of association in s. 2(d) of the Charter does **not include a guarantee of the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike**. ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> I would accordingly dismiss the appeal and answer the constitutional questions in the manner of McIntyre. Wilson J (dissenting): ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Agrees with the Dickson CJ. that the Act violates s.2(d), but disagrees with him that it is saved under s.1. ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> Although the objective of controlling inflation was at the time of the passage of the Act of sufficient importance to warrant a limitation of freedom of association, the imposition of the limitation only on the federal public sector employees was not a measure carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and did not meet the test set out by this Court in Oakes. The measures adopted were arbitrary and unfair. ·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> They were imposed upon a captive constituency, were not, on the government's own admission, expected to have any direct effect on inflation and could not possibly constitute an example of voluntary compliance for others to follow. ||
 * Facts:**
 * Facts:**
 * Judicial History:**
 * Issues and Held:**
 * Reasoning:**