Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 330, Mars 2003

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 24. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the rights of association of agricultural and domestic workers, and certain specified professionals (architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors) at its June 1999 meeting. The Committee recalled the necessity for all workers, without distinction whatsoever, to be able to organize freely, and to exercise fully all related rights and enjoy the necessary protection elaborated within the purview of freedom of association principles and drew the legislative aspects of this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations [316th Report, paras. 28-30].
2. 25. In a communication dated 2 February 2002, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) refers to the decision issued in December 2001 by the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the right of freedom of association was unconstitutional, and gave the Government 18 months to remedy the situation. The CLC wrote to the Minister of Labour in December 2001, requesting that the exclusion of agricultural workers be repealed. No action was taken and no consultations were undertaken with organized labour.
3. 26. In a communication of 3 October 2002, the Government states that, while the Supreme Court decision in Dunmore mandates the extension of some legislative protections to agricultural workers to ensure they have the right to form associations, it does not require their inclusion in a full statutory bargaining regime. The Government adds that this decision concerns only agricultural workers, and that it does not plan any legislative amendments as regards the other categories of workers concerned in this case; it reiterates that there are legitimate reasons for the exclusion of certain workers from the general statutory bargaining regime since laws enacted with industrial settings in mind are not always suitable for non-industrial workplaces. The Government is concerned about the possible implications of family farm unionization and argues that Ontario’s harvests and food supply must not be vulnerable to disruptions caused by strikes and lockouts.
4. 27. The Committee notes this information. As regards agricultural workers, the Committee further notes that the Government of Ontario introduced Bill No. 187 in October 2002 (Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002) which gives agricultural employees the right to form or join an employees’ association; it appears however that this legislation does not give agricultural workers the right to establish and join trade unions and to bargain collectively. As regards the other categories of workers concerned in the present complaint, the Committee notes with regret the Government’s stated intention to maintain the status quo. Recalling once again that all workers, with the sole possible exception of armed forces and police, should have the right to organize, the Committee strongly urges the Government to amend its legislation so that all the categories of workers fully enjoy this right and to keep it informed of developments.