Amendments come after top court found unconstitutional practices
After its essential services laws were struck down as unconstitutional by the country’s top court earlier this year, the government of Saskatchewan has now come up with the modified legislation.
Bill 183, otherwise known as the Saskatchewan Employment (Essential Services) Amendment Act, was introduced in the provincial legislature on Oct. 15 following a directive from the Supreme Court of Canada, which shot down previous practice as unconstitutional in January after a legal challenge from organized labour.
As part of the changes — the result of consultations with public sector employers and unions — the definition of "essential services" will be removed and an independent third-party tribunal will be established to settle any conflict. Previously, the government made the final call as to whether a service should be considered "essential."
Should Bill 183 pass, it will be left to the employer and union to determine whether their service would be considered "essential." The Essential Services Tribunal — comprised of the chair or vice-chair of the labour relations board and an employer and union representative each — would be a last resort if both parties could not agree.
As well, a three-person panel for binding mediation-arbitration would be established for when an essential services agreement is found to substantially interfere with a strike or lockout. Where essential services are identified, the cooling-off period would also drop from 14 days to seven.
Background
Saskatchewan’s government, led by Premier Brad Wall, introduced its controversial essential services legislation by amending the public services act shortly after coming to power in 2007.
Those amendments, known as Bill 128, were legally challenged by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, which accused the government of diminishing a public employee’s right to strike.
The fight went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which voted 5-2 to scrap the legislation. Wall and his government were given one year to redraft the document.
"Where strike action is limited in a way that substantially interferes with a meaningful process of collective bargaining, it must be replaced by one of the meaningful dispute-resolution mechanisms commonly used in labour relations," the Supreme Court justices noted in the ruling.
"Those public sector employees who provide essential services have unique functions which may argue for a less disruptive mechanism when collective bargaining reaches an impasse, but they do not argue for no mechanism at all."
According to Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Labour and Workplace Safety, this most recent legislation was designed to lessen conflict and ease discussion between public sector employers and unions, particularly when determining whether that job would be deemed an essential service.
"The Supreme Court did recognize in that ruling that essential services must be maintained while respecting workers’ rights to take job action," the government said in a statement.
While the intent of the legislation is for both parties to successfully negotiate an essential services agreement, in cases of impasse, a petition can be made to the provincial labour relations board, the ministry added.
Better late than never: Union
Larry Hubich, president of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (which represents more than 100,000 workers and 37 unions) praised the legislation as a good first step toward respectful collective bargaining in the province’s public sector.
"(Bill 183) is a substantial improvement on the previous version of essential services legislation, which was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada," Hubich said.
"It is my hope this new bill will set things on a good course while respecting the collective bargaining rights of working people who provide essential services."
One union went so far as to demand an apology from the Wall administration for the harm inflicted upon public workers. That the government was forced by the Supreme Court to treat workers fairly diminished meaningful collective bargaining, said Bob Bymoen, president of the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union (SGEU).
"The premier should offer a sincere apology for his government’s reckless actions and for the harm done to union members and all working people," said Bymoen.
"Tremendous effort and resources had to be marshalled by unions to counter this attack on public service workers. No group of citizens should be forced to go to such lengths to protect their basic constitutional rights."
He added the SGEU will be taking a closer look at Bill 183, and that it is too early to assess the full impact of the legislation on union members.
"With or without an essential services law, it is important to remember that in the rare instance of a public sector work stoppage, unions have always protected the public," Hubich added.
Bill 183 will have to pass a second and third reading in the legislature before royal assent and implementation.
