Case will test freedom and equality guarantees in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms National Union of Public and General Employees (www.nupge.ca) Ottawa - The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments Wednesday on whether a B.C. law enacted in 2002 violates the rights of health care and community social services workers as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At issue is Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. The legislation, rammed through the legislature by B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberal government in January 2002, shredded legally negotiated collective agreements. It also cleared the way for unprecedented levels of health care privatization and the firing of thousands of B.C. workers. The B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union (BCGEU/NUPGE), the Hospital Employees' Union (HEU), the B.C. Nurses' Union (BCNU) and other unions launched their constitutional challenge to Bill 29 in March, 2002. Fundamental rights BCGEU President George Heyman says the case is fundamental to the rights of workers to free collective bargaining. "The United Nations agency charged with monitoring labour relations has repeatedly condemned the B.C. government for undermining the collective bargaining process and violating international laws that Canada is bound to uphold," notes Heyman. "Bill 29 has caused four years of uncertainty and instability – and it continues to cast a shadow over current contract talks with health and community social services employers." HEU says Bill 29 continues to disrupt health care and rob workers of decent jobs because health employers have used it to eliminate thousands of decent, family supporting jobs. The BCNU says the legislation has affected the ability of registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses to care for their patients, eliminating training opportunities, restricting the movement to new positions and resulting in the layoff of hundreds of nurses. Equality and freedom of association The constitutional challenge to Bill 29 centres on equality and freedom of association guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In seeking leave to appeal the case, the unions' argued that the case raises questions that are of national and public importance. One such question is whether certain aspects of collective bargaining are protected by the freedom of association provisions contained in Section 2(d) of the Charter. Joseph Arvay, lead counsel for the unions, says that the "granting of leave" by the court to hear the case is significant. In the late 1980s, the court ruled that there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining guaranteed by the Charter. "This would suggest that the Court might be prepared to reconsider that critically important constitutional question," Arvay says. Another question raised by the unions is whether legislation targeting collective agreements in the most female-dominated sectors of the economy - such as health care and community social services - violates the equality provisions contained in Section 15 when the legislation is aimed at depressing wages which have been subject to pay equity processes. Intervenors The court has granted intervenor status to the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confédération des Sydicats Nationaux, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It has also granted intervenor status to the governments of Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario. When Bill 29 became law in 2002, it voided many long-standing provisions of health care and community social services collective agreements, including protections against contracting out, seniority rights and labour adjustment programs. The law also removed these workers' access to the successor provisions of the B.C. Labour Code, a right enjoyed by virtually every other unionized worker in the province. The unions' Charter challenge was dismissed by the Supreme Court of B.C. in September, 2003 and by the Appeal Court of B.C. in July, 2004. Last year, the Supreme Court granted the unions leave to appeal the highest B.C. decision in the case. NUPGE More information:
Background materials (B.C.)
Background materials (Newfoundland) |
