RWDSU+v.+Saskatchewan

Case: Saskatchewan, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460 || · Following unsuccessful contract talks between the unions and the only major dairy businesses in Saskatchewan, the unions served strike notices on the dairies. · Before the rotating strike could begin, the dairies served the unions with a series of lock-out notices covering all of their fluid milk plants. · The provincial legislature responded to these developments by passing //The Dairy Workers (Maintenance of Operations) Act// which __temporarily prohibited the dairy employees from striking and the dairies from locking out their employees__. · The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the unions’ application for a declaration that the Act infringed the freedom of association guaranteed by s. 2(d) of the Charter, but their appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed. · Does the Act violate s. 2(d) of the Charter? **NO** Beetz, Le Dain and La Forest JJ.: · For the reasons expressed by Le Dain J. in the Alberta Reference, 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 · Accordingly, //The Dairy Workers (Maintenance of Operations) Act// did not violate s. 2(d) of the Charter. Per McIntyre J.: · For the reasons I expressed in the Alberta Reference, the Act did not violate freedom of association guaranteed in s. 2(d) of the Charter because freedom of association does not embody the right to strike. Per Dickson C.J.: (relied on newspaper articles on economic argument, no evidence submitted) · In the context of labour relations, s. 2(d) of the Charter included the freedom to bargain collectively and to strike. · Therefore, The Dairy Workers (Maintenance of Operations) Act violated s. 2(d) of the Charter to the extent that it interfered with the employees' freedom to engage in strike activity that would have been lawful in the absence of the Act. · **The Act was justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter.** A legislature is entitled to abrogate the freedom of employees to strike if the effect of a strike or lock ‑ out would be especially **__injurious to the economic interests of third parties__**, provided that the legislature substituted a fair arbitration scheme to resolve the dispute. o The rationale for such an abrogation is that third parties who do not participate in a particular collective bargaining process ought not to be unduly harmed when the bargaining fails to produce a settlement. · Economic harm to a third party will not always justify s. 1 and the legislation abrogating the right to strike o In an interdependent economy, it is inevitable that a work stoppage in one industry will entail detrimental economic consequences for at least some individuals in other industries. · In view of the principles established in Oakes, the relevant question to be answered in making such a determination is: o **Whether the potential for economic harm to third parties during a work stoppage is so massive and immediate and so focussed in its intensity as to justify the limitation of a constitutionally guaranteed freedom in respect of those employees?** §<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;"> In this case, the legislative objective of avoiding serious harm to dairy farmers, in light of the unique nature of the dairy industry, constituted a satisfactory justification for the abrogation of the freedom of the dairy plant workers 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 evidence adduced indicated that the strike and the lock ‑ out would entail a virtually total closure of milk processing facilities in Saskatchewan. §<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;"> These facilities provided the sole outlet for dairy farmers and their closure would pose a serious threat to the farmers in that they would be forced to dump their product. §<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 dairy farmers could not stop production and could not store the milk for more than three days. §<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;"> These effects would persist whether the work stoppage was of a short or long duration. §<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 only were the threatened economic losses large in absolute terms but they were to be borne in their full intensity by the province's 800 dairy farmers. §<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 economic harm threatened by a total work stoppage in the dairy processing industry was so immediate, of such a high degree and of such an intense focus as to fall well within the ambit of the legislature's discretion to substitute a fair and efficient arbitration scheme for the dairy processing employees' freedom 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 compulsory arbitration scheme enacted in the Act met the criteria of proportionality for such a scheme. The Act applied only to the workers in the dairy industry; it provided for a neutral arbitrator; either party could ultimately compel the other to submit to arbitration without interference from the government; and the scope of arbitration was not legislatively restricted. Accordingly, the Act satisfied the requirements of s. 1 of the Charter and embodied a reasonable limit on freedom of association. 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;"> The Dairy Workers Act could not be saved under s. 1. 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 prevention of economic harm to a particular sector is not per se a government objective of sufficient importance to justify the limitation on the freedom of association guaranteed by s. 2(d).** 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;"> To justify government interference with the collective bargaining process the government must satisfy the court that as a minimum the __damage to the dairy industry as a consequence of the work stoppage would be considerably greater than that which would flow in the ordinary course of things from a work stoppage of reasonable duration__. §<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;"> In order for s.1 to be triggered, the economic damage to the industry caused by a strike needs to be more serious than an ordinary work stoppage of reasonable duration. ·<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;"> There is no basis of solid fact in this case on which to make a judgment as to whether the government's intervention was reasonable or not. The government has thus failed to discharge its onus and the infringement of respondents' freedom of association accordingly was not 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;"> Assuming that the objective of protecting the economic interests of dairy farmers was of sufficient importance to justify overriding the workers' right to strike, the means chosen were not closely tailored to the objective so as to ensure the least possible infringement of the right. The government should not automatically respond with a total strike ban and the institution of compulsory arbitration. In the complex area of economic harm, the tailoring need not be exact but tailoring there must be. ·<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 second government objective supporting the limitation on the freedom under s. 2(d) was that the dairy workers provided an essential service ‑‑ the delivery of an important food product to the consumers ‑‑ and that the cessation of such delivery might threaten the health of part of the population. There was no evidence to support this allegation. No threat to the health of Saskatchewan consumers was therefore established. ||
 * Facts:**
 * Facts:**
 * Judicial History:**
 * Issue & Held:**
 * Reasoning:**