Abstracts
Abstract
The United States Supreme Court has recently ruled in the Janus Case that the agency shop (mandatory dues check-off) imposed by Illinois law on state employees violates the freedom of expression and association guaranteed by the US Constitution. This decision underscores the profoundly different status enjoyed by the Rand Formula in Canada, where it is considered an essential element of the nation-wide Wagner-type collective bargaining system. Not only is it permitted everywhere, legislation has made it mandatory, in one way or another, in a majority of Canadian jurisdictions, including Quebec. Furthermore, almost 30 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that mandatory dues check-off did not interfere with the freedom of association or expression protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Keywords:
- Janus Case,
- United States,
- agency shop,
- rights and freedoms,
- Rand Formula,
- Canada
Résumé
La Cour suprême des États-Unis a récemment décidé, dans l’affaire Janus, que le précompte syndical imposé par la législation de l’Illinois aux employés de l’État viole les libertés d’expression et d’association que leur garantit la constitution américaine. Cette décision met en évidence le statut profondément différent dont bénéficie la Formule Rand au Canada, où elle est considérée comme un élément essentiel du régime de négociation collective de type Wagner qui prévaut à l’échelle national. Non seulement est-elle partout permise, mais la législation l’a rendue obligatoire, d’une façon ou d’une autre, dans une majorité de juridictions canadiennes, notamment au Québec. De plus, la Cour suprême du Canada a reconnu, il y a de cela près de 30 ans, que le précompte syndical obligatoire n’entravait ni la liberté d’association ni la liberté d’expression protégées par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.
Mots-clés:
- affaire Janus,
- États-Unis,
- précompte syndical obligatoire,
- droits et libertés,
- Formule Rand,
- Canada
Appendices
References
- Bok, Derek C. (1971) “Reflections on the Distinctive Character of American Labor Laws.” Harvard Law Review, 84, 1394-1463.
- Boyer, Marcel (2009) Union Certification: Developing a Level Playing Field for Labour Relations in Quebec. Montréal: Montreal Economic Institute Research Papers.
- Card, David and Richard B. Freeman (1994) “Small Differences that Matter: Canada vs the United States.” In R. B. Freeman (ed.), Working under Different Rules. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, p. 189-222.
- Dion, Gérard (1986) Dictionnaire canadien des relations du travail. Second Edition, Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.
- Doorey, David J. (2017) The Law of Work. Complete Edition, Toronto: Emond.
- Herbert, William A. (2019) “Janus v AFSCME, Council 31: Judges Will Haunt You in the Second Gilded Age.” Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 74-1, 162-173.
- Eidlin, Barry and Charles W. Smith (2018) “The Supreme Court’s Janus Ruling is Flawed. Canadian Legal History Shows Why.” The Washington Post, July First, 2018, online: https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/20180701.
- Fudge, Judy and Harry Glasbeek (1995) “The Legacy of PC 1003.” Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal, 3, 357-399.
- Godard, John (2013) “Labour Law and Union Recognition in Canada : A Historical-Institutionalist Perspective.” Queen’s Law Journal, 38 (2), 391-418.
- Langille, Brian and Josh Mandryk (2013) “Majoritarianism, Exclusivity and the ‘Right to Work’: The Legal Incoherence of Ontario Bill 64.” Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal, 17, 475-492.
- Paré, Frédéric et Gilles Trudeau (2015) “Pourquoi les Right-to-WorkLaws aux États-Unis?” Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale, 1, 6-16.
- Task Force on Labour Relations (1968) Canadian Industrial Relations. Ottawa : Privy Council Office.
- The Labour Law Case Book Group (2018) Labour and Employment Law – Cases, Materials, and Commentary. 9th Edition, Toronto: Irwin Law Inc.
- Weiler, Paul C. (1980) Reconcilable Differences. Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited.