|
Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act (PSRCA). Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against a dismissal of an application for "a declaration that the [SS: Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act ('PSRCA')] is of no force and effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982" under Charter s.2(d) ['freedom of association'] and s.2(d) ['freedom of expression']. This was back-to-work legislation addressing rotating postal strikes in 2018.
Here the court considers this back-to-work anti-strike PSRCA legislation, and the events of the case:[7] CUPW represents employees of Canada Post who process and deliver mail across Canada. Its members are divided into an urban and a rural bargaining unit. Canada Post, the employer, is a Crown corporation whose sole shareholder is the Government of Canada.
[8] CUPW served Notices to Bargain for both the urban and rural bargaining units on November 14, 2017, which triggered the formal collective bargaining process under the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2. The parties bargained from November 2017 until November 2018 but were unable to reach an agreement. CUPW announced on September 11, 2018 that its membership had voted in favour of strike action. On October 22, 2018, postal workers began a series of rotating strikes in several cities. The strikes lasted for five weeks. The application judge found, at para. 52 of his reasons, that the rotating strikes caused “serious social and economic dislocations”. CUPW strongly disputes the severity of the strike’s impact on appeal.
[9] On November 8, 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters that “all options [would] be on the table” to resolve the labour dispute if the two parties did not reach a resolution shortly. On November 22, 2018, the Act was tabled in Parliament. The Act received Royal Assent on November 26, 2018. The preamble to the Act noted that the parties had engaged since November 2017 in collective bargaining to reach new collective agreements and that the work stoppages were disrupting the delivery of mail and parcels across Canada and having a significant adverse impact. It also noted the need for an exceptional solution.
[10] The Act:. Required Canada Post to resume regular postal services and employees to resume the duties of their employment (s. 3);
. Required the union, its officers and representatives to notify employees of their obligation to return to work (s. 5);
. Extended previously negotiated collective agreements between Canada Post and CUPW until new collective agreements were reached (s. 6);
. Prohibited lockouts and strikes during the life of the extended collective agreements (s. 7);
. Required the Minister of Labour to refer to a mediator-arbitrator all matters in dispute between the parties related to the amendment or revision of the collective agreements (s. 9); and
. Imposed fines for non-compliance (s. 15). [11] In December 2018, Minister of Labour Patty Hajdu exercised her authority under the Act to appoint Elizabeth MacPherson, who appeared to be acceptable to both sides, as mediator-arbitrator. The 42-day arbitration, which involved oral testimony, took place between February 2019 and May 2020. On June 11, 2020, the arbitrator released her decision. She applied the replication principle in her decision, crafting an award that attempted to mirror what CUPW would have likely achieved in free collective bargaining. The parties agreed that the arbitral award would be effective for four years with a retroactive start date. In September 2021, the parties extended the collective agreements for another two years.
[12] CUPW brought an application arguing that the Act limited its members’ ss. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and 2(d) (freedom of association) Charter rights, and that the Prime Minister’s November 8, 2018 statement limited members’ s. 2(d) rights, all in a manner that was not demonstrably justified under s. 1. They sought three constitutional remedies: (1) a declaration that the Act and the impugned statement unjustifiably limited ss. 2(b) and 2(d) of the Charter; (2) a prospective declaration of invalidity of the Act to the extent of the Charter violations, pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and (3) an order under s. 24(1) of the Charter directing the parties to reach a resolution to the Charter breaches, failing which the court would retain jurisdiction to order remedies.
|
