The groups are challenging the constitutionality of Bill 124, a law passed in 2019 that limits salary increases to one per cent a year for Ontario civil service employees as well as workers in the broader public sector, including nurses and teachers. The bill’s provisions were to run for three years as new contracts were negotiated and the Tories had said it was a time-bound approach to help plug the deficit. Critics have long called for the bill to be repealed, saying it has contributed to a severe nursing shortage. The province has refused those calls, although the premier has said the government will negotiate fairly when contracts affected by the bill expire. The case is set to go to trial in Toronto in 10 days, starting Monday, and includes 10 applicants — mostly unions representing teachers, nurses, civil service workers, universities and their faculty and engineers, among dozens of other professions. The groups argue the bill violates a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects meaningful collective bargaining. “Bill 124 imposes restrictions on all forms of compensation and has undermined the bargaining power of nurses during a skilled labor crisis, exacerbated by a global pandemic, that would otherwise strengthen that power,” her attorneys wrote. Ontario Nurses Association. factum filed in court. The province, for its part, maintains that the bill does not violate the Charter.
The law allows the province to avoid “good faith negotiations,” teachers say
The nurses’ group also argues that the bill discriminates against women and violates gender and gender equality in two other sections of the Charter. The nursing association notes that more than 90 percent of its members are women. “The law has caused widespread harm to nurses, including: paralyzed collective bargaining, ineffective arbitration decisions, increasing job vacancies that affect the delivery of health care, a frustrated workforce with crushing workloads, and union backlash,” the nurses wrote in the lawsuit. documents. The union representing Catholic teachers argued the bill “uses legislative powers to avoid negotiating in good faith the most fundamental term of teachers’ employment – the compensation they receive in return for their work”. Protesters wearing masks gathered in November last year outside the office of Nepean MPP Lisa MacLeod, demanding that the Ontario government scrap Bill 124, legislation from 2019 that caps annual salary increases for many public sector employees on average 1 percent per year for three years. (Francis Ferland/CBC) The groups claim there was a lack of meaningful consultation before the bill was introduced to the legislature. The province, meanwhile, maintains that the law does not interfere with substantive collective bargaining and does not prevent negotiations over compensation issues. “The effect of Bill 124 is solely to preclude a specific negotiated or arbitrated outcome: compensation increases of more than 1 percent per year during the three-year moderation period,” the province wrote in its factum filed with the court. “The Charter does not guarantee unlimited annual raises for public sector workers.” The province maintains that it consulted in good faith with the groups between the introduction of the bill in June 2019 and the second reading of the bill in November 2019. It also argues that the bill does not interfere with groups’ ability to bargain over job security, benefits and seniority. The province further says the bill is not discriminatory. “There is no evidence of a link between an employee’s gender and the implementation of Bill 124,” the province wrote. He argues that the law balances the interests of public sector workers who want pay raises with the taxpayers who pay for those raises and the public who rely on those workers’ critical services. The province, which wants the case dismissed with costs, argues the court should not weigh in on the matter because it is political. “The court should reject the invitation to undertake judicial review of public sector compensation costs,” the province says. Ontario government lawyers further argue that the bill is indistinguishable from “broad-based, time-limited compensation limitation laws upheld by the Supreme Court.” The groups taking the government to court want the law ruled unconstitutional, along with damages and costs. They also want an order to void any affected collective agreements and return to negotiations.
The opposition parties side with the unions
The Main Opposition New Democrats say they will fight the unions to the end, calling the bill “unconstitutional”. “Doug Ford is undermining public services in Ontario – showing disrespect to the people who have acted heroically during the COVID pandemic,” said NDP Interim Leader Peter Tabuns. The Tabuns appeared alongside representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Ontario Nurses Union, CUPE Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Public Educators, SEIU Healthcare, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the United Steelworkers on Monday morning. Peter Tabuns, the interim leader of the Ontario NDP, appeared with union representatives before the Supreme Court in Toronto on Monday to condemn Bill 124. (CBC News) Tabuns noted that in addition to public service workers affected by the bill, citizens are suffering from closed emergency rooms across the province and understaffed schools. “Labor unions are right to fight this. They are fighting for our constitutional rights, as well as decency, respect and justice. We will fight with them ’till the end,’” Tabuns said. The Green Party of Ontario also weighed in, saying it’s time for the Ford government to stop fighting “expensive court battles to defend bad legislation.” The statement notes in particular the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling last year that found Ottawa’s carbon tax constitutional, which the province opposed, and the current legal battle against a group of young climate activists targeting the “dangerously low” emissions reduction targets. of Ontario emissions. “Mr Prime Minister, stop wasting taxpayers’ money defending the indefensible,” said Greens leader Mike Schreiner. “Repeal Bill 124 and focus on finding real solutions to the crisis in our health care system.”
