Abstract
In 1947, Bora Laskin, doyen of Canadian collective bargaining law, remarked that Labour relations as a matter for legal study... has outgrown any confinement to a section of law of torts or to a corner of criminal law. Similarly, and from another standpoint, it has burst narrow bounds of master and servant. That standpoint was liberal pluralism, which comprises collective bargaining legislation administered by independent labour boards and a system of grievance arbitration to enforce collective agreements. After World War II, it came to dominate our understanding of labour relations law such that, according to Laskin, reference to pre-collective bargaining standards is an attempt to re-enter a world that has ceased to exist. But this picture is only partially true. Instead of replacing earlier regimes of industrial legality, industrial pluralism was grafted on to them. Moreover, it only encompassed a narrow, albeit crucial, segment of workers; in mid-1950s the typical union member was a relatively settled, semi-skilled male worker within a large industrial corporation. More than 65 per cent of Canadian workers at that time, a large proportion of whom were women and recent immigrants, fell outside regime. This paper broadens focus from collective bargaining law to include other forms of legal regulation of employment relations, such as common law, minimum standards, and equity legislation. In doing so, it examines extent to which liberal pluralism regime was implicated in constructing and reinforcing a deeply segmented labour market in Canada. It also probes whether recent assaulton trade union rights may be trajectory for reconstruction of a new regime of employment relations. Resume En 1947, Bora Laskin, le doyen de la Loi canadienne sur la negociation collective, a remarque que « les relations de travail en tant qu'etude juridique ... ont depasse toute contrainte d'une section de la loi ou du droit criminel. D'une maniere similaire, mais d'un autre point de vue, elles ont aussi depasse les roles traditionnels que jouent le maitre et le serviteur. » Ce point de vue fait partie du pluralisme liberal, qui comprend la legislation de la negociation collective administree par des conseils du travail independants et un systeme de reglement des griefs par voie d'arbitrage pour faire valoir les conventions collectives. Apres la Deuxieme Guerre Mondiale, notre comprehension de la loi sur les relations de travail a ete dominee, selon Laskin, par la reference aux « normes de negociation collective prealable comme un essai de rentrer dans un monde qui a cesse d'exister. » Mais cette representation ne montre que partiellement la verite. Au lieu de remplacer les anciens regimes de la loi industrielle, le pluralisme industriel s'y est impose. De plus, il ne comprend qu'un segment etroit et crucial de travailleurs; dans les annees 1950 « le membre du syndicat typique etait un travailleur de sexe masculin ayant des competences relativement mediocres dans une corporation industrielle relativement grande. »Plus de 65 p. 100 des travailleurs canadiens a ce moment-la, dont une grande proportion des femmes et des immigrants recents, tombent en dehors du regime. Cet article met davantage l'accent sur la loi de la negociation collective pour inclure d'autres reglements relatifs aux relations de travail, tels que le droit commun, les normes minimales et la legislation relative a l'equite en matiere d'emploi. De ce fait, il examine jusqu'a quel point le regime du pluralisme liberal etait implique dans la construction et le renforcement d'un marche du travail profondement segmente au Canada. Il met aussi en question le faitque l'assaut recent aux droits des syndicats peut etre la trajectoire pour la reconstruction d'un nouveau regime de relations en matiere d'emploi.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.