Collective Bargaining - Essay Example

Case Analysis with Reference to Collective Bargaining Introduction Collective bargaining is a right which employees of the company can use in order to form unions. The right is more ethical in nature than it is legal. However, legal systems of the world do not prevent workers from forming unions and they do not encourage them to do so either. At the end of the day, each organization has some kind of unions working in order to solve and resolve problems and disagreements with the management respectively. The lack of formal legislation in the field of unionization, the concept developed in the light of a few decisions which are taken by supreme courts of the countries. The unionization law therefore, differs in various economic systems. The unionization is not allowed directly but it is a method that is developed in order to exercise collective bargaining and in its objective forming unions is a legal act[Kat93]. The formation of union is only acceptable in private sector but it is treated as a capital crime in governmental offices and armed forces. In case of armed forces, the culprits of unionization are thrown into jail and upon completion of their sentence they are court-martialed. The formation of union is the last thing a soldier will think about before leaving his or her job. Additionally, armed forces argue that they are operating for saving their nations’ sovereignty and pride and therefore, they should not indulge in providing ideal work environment for the soldiers while they have to live in tough environment during the war so they must trained in terms of making the most of even the worst kind of work climate. The practices of collective bargaining and unionization are known to emerge at the end of great depression when people were forced to work under the extremities of inhumane environments. With the passage of time, the workers started to raise voices about their work environment and finally, legal courts initiated to respond to their needs and companies had to offer their employees a safe and sound environment to work in. the stream of change in this regard because the beacon of moment shifted towards improving the quality of supervisory behaviors as time passed. The legal pressures caused the companies to adopt modern philosophies of management such as delegation of authority and participative management. The Japanese taught the world that bureaucracy is an inefficient way of managing the organizations because it wastes too much time in decision making and they presented the concept of self managed teams which scanned the environment so that they can develop strategies in order to cope with the current challenges of the business. The employee became empowered with legal interventions in the corporate world. The Social-Legal-Economic-Political-Technological analysis of the society became a necessity for the businesses as they were interested in finding out as much as they can about the environment in which they have to operate. The communities where legal systems are weak, the businesses are less careful about their employees’ health and safety while, the societies where workers have been valued managed to create giants like Apple. Following are the detailed case analyses that had influenced collective bargaining and unionization as concepts in the modern world. Dunmore vs. Ontario (2001) The case between Dunmore and Ontario had been created when the employer tried to snatch the right of free association from its employers who were farmers by professions. The government of Canada which was ran by New Democratic Party of Ontario responded in due time by creation of Agricultural Relations Act. The act gifted the freedom of association and bargaining to local farmers of Ontario. However, the subsequent change in government shifted the power in the hands of Mike Harris’ Progressive Conservatives and they cancelled the Agricultural Relations Act. In response, Tom Dunmore, Salame Abdulhamid, Walter Lumsden and Michael Doyle who were supported by United Foods and Commercial Workers challenged the termination of the act. They also stood against Labour Relations and Employment Statute Amendment Act and argued that it stood against their right of free association. Both of these privileges were provided by the sections 2(d) and 15(1) of the charter itself. The issues in front of the court required that the judges must see whether or not Labour Relations and Employment Statute Amendment Act infringed both of the abovementioned sections of the charter and majority that section 2(d) was not followed as the employers tried to suppress the freedom of association of their employers at more than one occasion. The judge, Justice Bastarache articulated in the decision that the soul of section 2(d) is to facilitate performance by permitting free interpersonal communication and relations. However, the purpose of the piece of law was impaired by multitude of employers. The court found that effects of Labour Relations and Employment Statute Amendment Act resulted in infringement of section 2(d) and therefore, the newly formed act was cancelled and it reinstated the rights of farmers. Furthermore, the case linked section 2(d) with allowance of freedom to employees to have interpersonal relation with whomever they want to[Dun011]. In simple terms, the part of the charter was reinforced and it had been given a new meaning during the process which established that innocent human relations should not be prevented from forming into the organization which was a significant implication for the nature of the charter. Health Services and Support---Facilities Subcontractors Bargaining Assn vs. British Columbia (2007) The British Columbia’s healthcare systems were tempered with by passing a new law which was known as Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. The act was established in order to make the company capable of coping with the challenges in terms of managing health related benefits of the staff. However, the act was made a formal part of the charter rapidly and due consultation from workers’ union was not obtained. The law granted the organization a much needed freehand regarding hiring contracted employees and the company was in position of providing minimal benefits to the temporary staff which was a clear violation of collective bargaining rights of the employees. The unions, medical professionals and social factions held on to the point that the law is against everything for which Charter’s provision supporting freedom of association stood for at that time. Trail and Appeal Judges collectively agreed that the act was not able to infringe section 2(d) of the charter. However, the appeal was allowed upon finding sections 6(2), 6(4) and 9 of the act as unaligned with the constitution. All of the mentioned sections allowed the company to treat the employees inhumanly. The decision was reached that considered section 2(d) of the Charter as a fundamental and the most enlightened employment law and the court held the viewpoint that the Charter’s basic purpose is to protect human rights of the employees as well and they are given the right to collective bargaining under section 2(d) whereas, they can use this right in order to achieve their common legal goals. They can also collectively bargain in order to have bettered working environment for themselves and they can work to change employment terms and conditions as well. In the light of above discussion, workers can be forced to work under inhumane environment and they preserve the right to challenge any changes in their employment contracts without prior notice as well. The goals and objectives of the employee regime are not protected by section 2(d) but the very process by that they should be pursued is protected by the constitutional right of collective bargaining[Hea07]. The demands of employees must be dealt with via holding discussions in a peaceful setting. The case again signified the linkages between freedom of association and collective bargaining. However, in this instance, the collective bargaining was being used to undo changes in employment contracts which were done without consulting with union and therefore, it was considered perfectly legal by the court of law to seek appropriate employment agreements for the employees. Ontario (Attorney General) vs. Fraser (2011) The case was established in response to the company’s policy change which left out the farmers of the area during negotiations with the management, the right granted by Labour Relations Act. The law was developed with the name of Agricultural Employees Protection Act. The company went on with its wrongdoing in order to create a separate system for farmers. However, the union reacted instantaneously towards such an open violence of section 2(d) of the Charter. The action of the company was considered both unethical and illegal by the stakeholders because it was done in the presence of court’s decision in the case of Health Services and Support---Facilities Subcontractors Bargaining Assn vs. British Columbia (2007). The decision reconfirmed the traditional and conventional stature of the law that states that employees should be allowed to form social relations in order to achieve their common interests and goals. However, the company committed a known violence of section 2(d) by leaving out farmers from negotiation process[Ont11] and therefore, the rights of farmers were reinstated on an immediate basis. Moreover, the decision revealed the shininess of section 2(d) in relation to the right of collective bargaining. Republic Service Employee Relations Act The Republic Service Employee Relations Act is known to provide basis of development for Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Act mentioned the right of free association in the history of the country and after some time, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was modified in order to include the new section about freedom of forging social relations which include right to strike as well[Ref87]. Alberta Human Rights Act The Alberta Human Rights Act was signed by Canadian government in the year of 1948. The Act added a flavor of antidiscrimination in the equation of social relations and extended the degree of liberty in this regard to suppressed factions of the population of Canada. Now no one can refuse to socialize with others on the basis of race, color and social status. The Charter is a collection of rules and regulations which are borrowed by several different sources and the featured act is one of them as well. The Charter is a sophisticated work in progress and its meanings are changing as the surrounding world modifies with the passage of time but this document will remain a guardian of human freedoms in times to come. Conclusion This paper has reviewed and analyzed the value and importance of associational rights of employees with the help of summarizing and evaluating court decisions on the subject matter. However, during the process, it was uncovered that Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not just a document but it has an embedded philosophy within it that argues that there should be no hate in humans whatsoever. These kinds of written materials are screaming to the world that it should embrace global citizenship behaviors more than anything in the present times. The times of nationalism is gone when that concept driven wars in the world. The essence of section 2(d) can be found in the need to see a stronger level of societal connection amongst the humans of the world. The hate is nothing more than or less than the absence of love and affection. The same conceptual framework has been used in order to promote homosexuality in the Canadian society because section 2(d) grants the right of association to everyone regardless of their gender until and unless it is consensual. The developed nations are developed due to their commitment in the direction of safeguarding their populations’ rights and eventually their life satisfactions increase manifold. In turn, they become more attached towards the notion of societal service. In the end, it can be inferred that the only difference which is present in advanced and less developed worlds stems out of their quality of life. Empowered legal systems can alone bring betterment in societies in ways one even cannot begin to calculate. References Kat93: , (Katz, 1993), Dun011: , (Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001), Hea07: , (Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007), Ont11: , (Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, 2011), Ref87: , (Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), 1987), Read More