CAMPAIGNS

During November and December of 1998, the UN reviewed Canada's commitments as a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. SPHRE's submission to the relevant committee and its response are included below.

To: United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

From: The Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Employment

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Employment is an international organization with its headquarters in Canada. Its mission is to promote awareness, understanding and respect for human rights in employment which include, but are not limited to, freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, and protection against child labour, forced labour and discrimination in employment.

Our organization would like to bring to your attention Ontario's Bill 22, "The Prevention of Unionization Act", which offends international human rights standards and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the obligations assumed by Canada when it became a signatory to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The bill's purpose according to Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services is to dissuade workfare recipients from organizing to collectively represent their interests in Ontario's workfare programme.

When she introduced the Bill to the legislature Minister Ecker stated unequivocally that the purpose of the Act was "to prevent [workfare] participants from unionizing or striking." In his statement during the legislative debate, Joseph Tascona a member of the governing party, stated quite definitely "The bill provides that participants shall not join a trade union, bargain collectively or strike with respect to their community participation under Ontario Works.'"

Language in the Bill creates the impression that workfare participants are forbidden to join a union, to bargain collectively and to strike. The second paragraph of the Bill says: "no person shall do any of the following with respect to his or her participation in a community participation activity: 1. Join a trade union; 2. Have the terms and conditions under which he or she participates determined through collective bargaring; 3. Strike." In response to a request for an assessment of Bill 22 by experts at the International Labour Organization, SPHRE received a memo summarizing the language and jurisprudence under Convention 87 on Freedom of Association which it passed on to the government. The memo contained the following statements: "

Article 2 of Convention No. 87 clearly states that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish, and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.' The scope of the provision is extremely broad, applying to all workers and employers. The only exception permitted is found in Article 9, namely the armed forces and the police."

"With respect to the right to bargain collectively, the Committee on Freedom of Association has stated that the right to bargain freely with employers with respect to conditions of work constitutes an essential element in freedom of association...' The only exceptions permitted to this principle are again the police and armed forces, as well as public servants engaged in the administration of the State (which is normally a very narrow group of public servants)."

"Finally, concerning the right to strike, this right has been found to arise out of the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities, and to further and defend the interests of workers, pursuant to Articles 3 and 10 of Convention No. 87... The right can be restricted or even prohibited again with respect to the police and armed forces and also in case of an acute national crisis, in essential services (as narrowly defined by the supervisory bodies) or with respect to public servants engaged in the administration of the State. All other categories should be entitled to strike to defend their social and economic interests."

Convention 87 is considered to be one of the ILO's "fundamental human rights standards." This past summer the organization, in addition, adopted a Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work which placed on all member nations including Canada an obligation "to respect, to promote and to realize in good faith" a set of fundamental core rights which included "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining."

These rights are also to be found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 8.1. states that "The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure: a. the right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests." and "d. the right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country."

According to Jack Donnelly, Andrew W. Mellon Professor, Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver author of several books on international human rights standards and acknowledged as one of the world's top experts on the subject, "this bill is one of the clearest violations of international norms that I have ever seen in a country typically considered to be democratic." Donnelly is one of several hundred petitioners who have sent notes to the government asking it to withdraw Bill 22.

Despite the statements made by the Minister and despite the language in the Bill referred to above, Bill 22 does not technically forbid workfare recipients from organizing. The clause above stating that workfare recipients are not permitted to form a union, bargain collectively or strike is prefaced by the phrase "under the Labour Relations Act, 1995." Those words are contained in the second paragraph of the Bill. Since the Bill's first paragraph removes workfare recipients from the coverage of the Labour Relations Act the only apparent purpose of the second paragraph is to mislead as indeed it has done. We have been unable to find any press report in the province that does not assert that the Bill forbids those on workfare from unionizing, bargaining collectively and striking. The government has made no attempt to correct these reports.

There can be little doubt that the policy objective of Bill 22 is to stymie the exercise of rights prominently mentioned in the Covenant and generally considered to be among the most fundamental international human rights. To date this episode has done much to create the impression that a government may legitimately forbid unionization, ban collective bargaining and proscribe the exercise of the right to strike.

Ontario's Bill 22 is a blatant and brazen affront to the international human rights consensus. If it is allowed to pass without censure serious damage may be done to the cause of strengthening respect for human rights.

Roy J. Adams Chair,
Steering Committee Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Employment

31. The Committee notes that Bill 22, entitled "An Act to Prevent Unionization", was adopted by the Ontario Legislative Assembly on 24 November 1998. The Act denies to workfare participants the rights to join a trade union, to bargain collectively and to strike. In response to a request from the Committee, the Government provided no information in relation to the compatibility of the Act with the Covenant. The Committee considers the Act to be a clear violation of article 8 of the Covenant and calls upon the State Party to take measures to repeal the offending
provisions.