The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has rejected a claim by the Canada Post workers union that a government directive to end a strike was unconstitutional. On December 13, 2024, federal Labour Minister Steve MacKinnon utilized his authority under Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to instruct the CIRB to halt the postal workers’ strike and assume control of arbitration. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) contended that compelling an end to the strike through Section 107 was against the constitution and raised concerns about potential violations of workers’ Charter rights.
In its ruling, the CIRB acknowledged the importance of the right to strike but emphasized its limitations. The board concluded that the use of Section 107 did not infringe upon the Charter and stated it lacked the jurisdiction to review the minister’s directive suspending the workers’ right to strike. However, one member of the board dissented from this decision.
Member Paul Moist, who dissented, supported the union’s position, criticizing the minister’s application of the labour code as a strategic maneuver to bypass parliamentary procedures and public discourse. Moist argued that the order impeded or revoked the workers’ right to strike, thus infringing on their Charter right to fair collective bargaining. CUPW has also sought judicial review, with no final decision made by the federal court as of yet.
The CIRB informed the relevant parties of its decision on August 13, with the public announcement following after translation. The use of Section 107 by the government in labor disputes has sparked controversy, with unions condemning it as a threat to workers’ strike rights and bargaining power. They assert that the recurring invocation of this provision by the Liberal government undermines the negotiation process and weakens the government’s ability to resolve strikes efficiently.
Section 107 has been a component of the labor code since 1984 but has seen increased application by the current government in recent years. Its involvement in resolving disputes, such as the Air Canada flight attendants strike and conflicts in the railway and port sectors, has drawn criticism for its perceived interference with fair bargaining practices. This contentious use of Section 107 has become a focal point in labor disputes across federally regulated industries, prompting concerns about its implications for workers’ rights and government interference.