Abstracts
Résumé
Les modifications apportées au Code canadien du travail par le législateur en 1978 ont considérablement accru le pouvoir de manoeuvre du CCRT. L'auteur fait ici une analyse et un bilan de ces trois années d'expérience.
Abstract
The author discusses the various means of intervention available to the CLRB when it receives applications for a declaration of unlawful strike or lockout under the provisions of theCode.
As a result of amendments to theCode in June 1978, the CLRB enjoys considerable discretionary power in choosing the methods it may apply in resolving a labour dispute. Consequently, the CLRB has, in addition to the power of declaring that a strike or lockout is, was or would be unlawful in certain cases, the power to issue cease and desist orders, to consent to prosecute or in cases of noncompliance is empowered to file the said order with the Federal Court.
However, in numerous disputes, it appears that a CLRB order would not be required if an effort were made to bring the parties themselves to settle the dispute which could have led to certain unlawful actions. The labour relations officers of the CLRB are immediately sent on the spot in an attempt to assist the parties in reaching a settlement. The mediation techniques used to date have been successful to a certain degree in the peaceful settlement of labour disputes.
When the CLRB is required to intervene in a more direct fashion, it attempts to discover through its investigation, the underlying causes of the possible unlawful actions in order to prescribe appropriate remedies which in most cases do not address themselves solely to re-establishing the status quo ante.
The author gives a practical illustration of how these means of intervention are felt, through an in-depth analysis of the Board's decisions.
In theCanadian Broadcasting Corporation case, which is considered in detail among other cases in this article, the CLRB issued a cease and desist order after determining that a work stoppage was illegal and could have harmful effects not only on the Corporation from a production standpoint but also on the balance of power of the parties at the bargaining table. In addition to issuing this order, the Board decided to prescribe certain special remedies to neutralize the causes of the ills it had identified.
The Board consequently ordered the parties, among other things, to refer the specific problem of the interpretation of their collective agreement to accelerated arbitration. This particular part of the order issued by the CLRB inCBC was nevertheless revoked by the Federal Court of Appeal on April 8, 1981. In his article, the author anticipates certain possible future controversies concerning the CLRB's powers of intervention should this Federal Court judgment be upheld.
The author concludes that in view of the special nature of the Board's powers in this area, intervention on the part of the CLRB should not be equated with the jurisdiction exercised by Common Law courts when they are called upon to issue injunctions in the case of certain labour disputes.