Here's a proper thread on today's #Bill 124 decision. I screwed up the 'threading' earlier.

Wage freeze legislation is unconstitutional violation of freedom of association. Here is the decision:



Here's a nuts and bolts brief explainer thread🧵coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/220… Justice Favreau rules that #Bill124 "substantially interferes" with "right to participate in good faith negotiation and consultation over working conditions".

Distinguishes cases in which wage freeze legislation upheld.

Ontario Court of Appeal rejects @fordnation Conservative's appeal on #Bill124.

Wage capping law for public sector employees is unconstitutional.

OECTA v. Ontario 2024 ONCA 101

A quick 🧵: Justice Favreau rules that #Bill124 "substantially interferes" with "right to participate in good faith negotiation and consultation over working conditions".

Distinguishes cases in which wage freeze legislation upheld"

Well, that’s a good question. Let’s unpack it.

Both parties can agree to refer a bargaining dispute to binding arbitration. But this rarely happens.

Why? Because one side or both doesn’t want arb.

Why? Because Arbitration can be both conservative & unpredictable.

So … 🧵

https://twitter.com/Alicia_Lynn_/status/1590831131896995840

If a party is trying to achieve a major or novel gain, they may be concerned that an arbitrator won’t award it. Arbitration is not usually the best forum for making huge gains.

Many arbitrators lean towards ‘splitting the difference’ in the parties’ proposals. Conservative.

If #Bill28 just imposed a 'collective agreement' w/out notwithstanding clause, then situation would be similar to that which occurred with the Putting Students First Act, 2012:

canlii.ca/t/51whv

That law essentially imposed a contract, & was found to violate Charter.

https://twitter.com/TheLawofWork/status/1589628287860736000

Ok, now gearing up for the CUPE press conference.

In the battle of duelling placards, CUPE's has "Respect Charter Rights, Repeal Bill 28"

And I'm back in the hearing!

But I'm not sure where we are at. AG Counsel Robin Basu is talking. Will take a minute to catch up.

What are you all having for breakfast? Was asked if OLRB hearings have ever gone this late before?

I remember this case involving 'unlawful strike' at TTC.

Chair Whitaker got the application at 4:30 a.m., held a phone hearing overnight (without union counsel present), & issued a decision.

canlii.ca/t/1nftc

This morning's #OLRB hearing in Min. of Education v. CUPE begins at 9 am. Watch it here:

I will comment until I need to be a dad.

First up: OLRB decision on whether @Sflecce & another senior govt official can/should be ordered to appear as witnesses. Recap:

1. OLRB denied intervenor status to other ONT unions. This will speed up the hearing, which is govt's goal.

2. OLRB permitted govt to fix a mistake in name of respondent, from CUPE-ONT to CUPE.

3. OLRB reserved on CUPE's request for @Sflecce to be summons to testify.

Getting ready to watch the #OLRB hearing on the Ontario government's unlawful strike application against @CUPEOntario, et al.

You can watch it here:

I will add some commentary if I think of anything clever.

🧵 The key pieces of legislation involved in this case are:

Labour Relations Act: ontario.ca/laws/statute/9…

Bill 28: Keeping Students in School, Act:
ola.org/en/legislative…

I'm reading @CUPEOntario's response to the Ontario government's illegal strike application. Some points:

- top notch lawyers from @GPLLP are counsel

- Government named CUPE-Ontario as respondent, but "CUPE Ontario" is not a union. Suspect that OLRB will permit correction here. - CUPE denies that it called for an unlawful strike or that one is occurring.

- CUPE argues it is engaged in a political protest vs draconian legislation, which is protected expression.

- IF this protest is a 'strike', then definition of strike in OLRA is a Charter violation.