Expert cites risks of relying on Section 107: 'It has the effect of kicking the can down the road and letting the problem continue to fester'
The recent request by Air Canada flight attendants to go straight to arbitration signals a shift in labour relations in Canada; according to Barry Eidlin, professor of sociology at McGill University, it’s a level of union mobilization not seen in “several decades.”
The discord boils down to a “mismatch in expectations,” Eidlin says, which has arisen out of the pandemic and shifts in work trends since then.
“Coming out of the pandemic, there was a tight labour market, a cost-of-living crisis that both gave workers more leverage on the labour market and more of a reason to fight,” he explains.
“As workers began to fight, you started to see more strikes, there was a snowball effect, and more workers saw that, ‘Okay, this is actually an option. I can actually fight. I don't have to just accept whatever my employer is offering,’ and it raised workers’ expectations.”
While this current wave of labour action in Canada reflects previous patterns, Eidlin says, it is also a departure in key ways – mainly in the use of Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code by the federal government to get workers back on the job without negotiation, and the backlash that has created.
NDP calls for end to Section 107
NDP labour critic Alexandre Boulerice announced Tuesday that the party will be tabling a private members’ bill this coming fall to have Section 107 struck from the Labour Code. Also, it has been shown that public support for the Air Canada flight attendants strike was strong.
While political moves to quell government power in halting strikes suggest a more labour-friendly landscape to come, that might not necessarily be the case—with the NDP losing its official party status in the last federal election, the reality is contradictory, Eidlin says.
“We're seeing labour mobilization, support for unions, support for workers fighting for more, at the same time that we have the collapse of the political left and the rise of the far right,” he says.
“This usually does not go together. Historically speaking, when you have workers mobilizing, that tends to spill over into broader political support for left and labour parties. And it's the opposite now.”
Changing standards and the expectations gap
Employers should be aware that public and government attention to unpaid work is likely to increase, Eidlin says, pointing to labour Minister Patty Hajdu’s probe into the issue in August, in response to what she called the “deeply disturbing” practice of not paying flight attendants for ground work.
“This gets back to this point of expectations mismatch, because after these few years of seeing more groups of workers fighting, winning better wages and working conditions, a lot of workers’ expectations of what they should get at the bargaining table are heightened,” Eidlin says.
The present discord between employers and employees being played out on picket lines indicates that employers are slow to catch on, he says, stressing that arbitration only prolongs inevitable change.
“Employers have gotten used to the past few decades of one-percent raises and a few token things at the bargaining table,” he says.
“That's what's underlying a lot of the conflict that we're seeing now is, is that employers have been slow to recognize that we're in this new period and are reluctant to adapt.”
Arbitration and the limits of intervention
The CEO of Air Canada, Michael Rousseau, said when speaking to BNN Bloomberg on August 18 that the airline had “expected [Section] 107 to be enforced,” explaining why no plans to accommodate travellers impacted by the strike had been made.
“He expressed the truth that I think many employers believe, and this is the effect of these repeated uses of section 107,” he says.
“They basically train employers to not negotiate, because ‘We'll just let a strike happen and then wait for the government to intervene, and then they're just going to impose a contract. So why should I bother going to the table?’”
For employers, the increased reliance on arbitration intervention is not a substitute for genuine collective bargaining, Eidlin says, explaining that the Air Canada union action is “a textbook case” of an employer’s over-reliance on the process.
“Binding arbitration usually has the effect of papering over disputes rather than resolving them,” he says.
“It has the effect of kicking the can down the road and letting the problem continue to fester and just bubble up in a different form a few years later.”
The effect of increasing strikes and arbitration can also spill over into the private sector, he adds, creating a “snowball effect” as workers gain a general understanding that by unionizing, they can access better income and benefits.
“So, you have these bigger wage packages that workers are demanding, that sound big, like 20% over four years,” he says.
“But then if you put it in the context of 20, 30, 40 years of largely wage stagnation, you're basically just making up for lost ground.”
