Labor law and industrial relations in Canada

Labor law and industrial relations in Canada

Introduction

1              In the first decade and half of the 20th century, before the turn of twentieth century a new model of unization was emerging that would dissolve distinctions among laborers and unite all workers in the same organization-industrial unionism. In Canada the impetus for this new style of unionism came from three kinds of industries (Arthur et al 2004). Workers were concentrated in large numbers and faced more aggressive corporate employers, industries where key groups of workers still had some independence from their employers and industries where distinctions between crafts were traditionally limited or were dissolving in the second industrial revolution.

Many of these communities had a high percentage of immigrants. Often the workers who become union leaders had recently arrived from us Britain, or Eastern Europe. Many were socialists who became leaders in part because of their strong commitments to both a labor and political ideology (Arthur et al 2004). Socialist organizers opposed Canada’s commitment to capitalism, and this opposition led them to reject the notion of dividing workers into exclusive organizations and to encourage both skilled and unskilled workers to join in a common strangle.

2. Canadian federal government realized that time to end the acrimonious relationship of employers and union leaders had come. It passed the 1907 industrial dispute investigation act that forced workers and employers in transportation, resource, and utilities industries to submit their disputes to a three-person board of conciliation before initiating a strike or lockout. After the board heard evidence and issued its report, the parties were still prevented from striking or being locked out during a “cooling-out” period. The federal government wanted to have a corner stone through which it would curtail the strikes. The federal government was not intervening direct in labor dispute because it consulted the labor union members to undermine union solidarity and stopping the organization of new world war during the first industrial dispute investigation business owners were urged by the government to hold off by making negotiations of labor management agreements a protracted affair (Arthur et al 2004.The federal government also refused to offer any kind of substantive assistance to unions. The Ottawa bureaucrats were encouraging employers to negotiate workplace agreements directly with the committee of workmen rather than doing it using formal unions. The federal government continued with anti-union policies and introduced more laws providing Canadians with social security.
3. Basis of federal government in the public versus private labor dispute

Rand formula in Canadian unions led to financial security necessary to guarantee the survival of the state workers employers, unions and business owners. The federal government gave right to compel employers to negotiate with them the terms of the work place relationship. The establish of new law that mandated that unions entrenched in collective agreements the notion of seniority with regard to promotion and layoffs (Arthur et al 2004. This made the relationship between employers and employees easy. Workers had little influence in making workplace rules and employers could narrow considerably the kinds of issue open to labor management negotiation. The role of union had been reduced to fighting for better wages and benefits.

4. Systemic bias of federal industrial dispute board worked in favor of the employers; The workers had being keenly aware of the sacrifices they were making to help government fuel its war machine but that awareness turned first to resentment and then to anger because government became more authoritarian and interventionist in lives of laboures.Ottawa extended the industrial dispute investigations act to munitions industries, centered press reports of labor disputes, brought in prohibiting(thereby denying  workers their daily glass of beer)and announced that it was going to force workers to be part of a national registration scheme and if necessary, make service in the military compulsory. According to the Canadian federal government act (1907 act)acrimonious relationships between employers and labor leaders were to be solved by submitting their disputes to a three-person board were their grievances could be heard and report issued, however the industrial dispute board investigating disputes between the two parties for instance could not enforce their findings(Arthur et al 2004). This act favored employers because for meanwhile the workers and the parties were prevented from striking hence forming a base through which the employers mistreated workers.

5. Railroad organizations likewise contended savagely against each other. Competitors organizations assembled uncommonly costly lines, here and there parallel to those of their rivals, and afterward battled for business by promising quicker and less expensive administration. The opposition and expenses inside the business prompted unforgiving work hones fifteen-hour days, low wages, and to a great degree perilous work conditions as organizations attempted to increase any favorable position in the market (Arthur et al 2004). The life of a railroad administrator was dangerous to the point that extra security organizations routinely declined to give scope truth be told, the primary work associations among railroad specialists were truly protection cooperatives, fraternities that gave burial service assets and life coverage to their brief individuals.

6. Charges were almost always against the striking workers .Not all violence was inspired by the striking workers employers. Railway companies resulted to conflicts but the charges were to the striking workers .The reason behind this was that the employer obduracy might lead to rejection of recognition; such conduct was in itself legally permissible. Had workers passively accepted such decisions, the level of violence in American labor disputes would have been reduced. Workers were, however, unwilling to watch their jobs forfeited to a local or imported strikebreaker. Employers could shut down their plants and this could have negative impact to the state lowering the standards of living (Arthur et al 2004)..Such a policy might have worked. The railway companies seem to recognize their rights and costs frequentlyand refused to follow any self-denying tactic. As a consequence violence initiated from the labor side was also prevalent.
7. Railway construction was so important for federal government’s policy of national development. The difference between the economies of late nineteenth century and the late first two decades of the twentieth century was the away in which the regional clusters of the former gave way to the national centralization symbolic of latter (Arthur et al 2004). One of the key changes in the post-second industrial revolution work environment was the introduction of the professional managers; de-skilling and mechanization in pursuit of high productivity which the government wanted to take advantage of the workers. By this time Canadian group of workers had been converted to industrial unionism of which the federal government wanted to test its first experiment with industrial unionism.

8. American Federation of labor was the first to engage in business unionism. This new approach involved charging members of higher than normal dues, hiring full time officials, centralizing control overstrike funds and benefit plans and establishing a strict separation between the different crafts. During this era only one union could exist in each trade, the workers who were unskilled and semi-skilled were denied membership in craft unions in addition women were excluded from traditional trades. The objective of the large unions such as AFL was to enter into collective bargaining agreements with the employers and binding contracts the threat of boycott and union labels (Arthur et al 2004. FL type crafts unions hired full time agents who formed the new labor bureaucracy focused to control union assets. It denied workers access to strike funds and control over each member of their organization.
9. The state and the legal institutions joined the employers in responding to labor conflict as a result of some circumstances. Laws were put in place to implement the new work place arrangements served to limit the ability of workers to promote labor solidarity .Workers could no longer go out to strike as they could go previously because they were now controlled by legislation. The ability of labors to take direct actions, walk outs and strike for instance and to resist management pressure was replaced by slower, more bureaucratic procedures .unions had to persuade workers to pay dues and sign cards in order to get unions recognized instead of using mass protest outside company gates what they were doing before(Arthur et al 2004). Collect agreement was signed, strikes were illegal until the agreement expire and compulsory conciliation had run its course .stopping work illegally was wild cat strike research departments to provide data for negotiation and education department to train the workers to handle grievances and negotiate contract was developed and facilitated the government and legal institution to join employers in responding to labor conflicts.
10. a.The industries include the Canadian pacific railway, craft and Mining industry craft unionism was drawing together all the skilled workers in particular crafts to present a united front and there by preserve traditional customs and practices and prevented employers from destroying the apprenticeship system of training(Arthur et al 2004). Mining industry;

The potential recruits in the mining sector included transient groups of mainly immigrant workers who possessed little command of English language, the poorest paid of the country’s laborers and workers in construction industries also. This formed the main challenge to the mining workers. Other challenges included inability for unemployed workers to demand the right to work for wages. The workers in these industries believed that the main problem faced by union members was lack of political equality and a spare deal(Arthur et al 2004)l. They wanted their problems to be listened to and be given better working and living conditions and social equality. As a result these workers conducted a protest to protect the honest working man it was open to all workers advocating the introduction of democracy to the work place.Those workers in railway companies were complaining of poor wages, working for long hour’s poor accommodation and being mistreated by the government and their employers. Craft men were seen as the subjects by their employees and they were not given their rights even to express their views and grievances to the employer.

1. the state so often resulted into coercion following the end of world war the employers organizations had already succeeded in undermining union solidarity .The employers coopted the demand of labor leaders and had introduced plants welfare programs. There was increased involvement of state labor management relations. As a result of the world war and winning peg general strike and the government began to use army and police recruits to assist employers in pitting down strikes. Troops and police were also used to break up even peaceful attempts by workers to demonstrate labor solidarity. The state could often result in coercion as we see its involvement in workplace dispute, the intervention of the federal government in the winning peg general strike .The government used its authority to make some actions criminal by amending the criminal code to give it jurisdiction to arrest and deport strike leaders.

Government at all the three levels used the law to stop communist organizers from establishing industrial unions (Arthur et al 2004). The federal government refused to force employers to recognize radical unions, the provincial governments reacted to the organization of radical unions by using their rough up strikers to   shut down labor organizations or activities. The state also organized federal elections which marked the end of labor political involvement.

Reference

Arthurs, H. W., Carter, D. D. & Glasbeek, H. J. (2004).Labor law and industrial relations in Canada.