Union leaders are accusing the federal government of undermining collective bargaining by repeatedly outlawing legal strikes under a rarely used clause of the Canada Labour Code.Blacklock's Reporter says in just 18 months, cabinet has imposed eight strike bans — an unprecedented level of intervention that labour leaders say has “poisoned” relations between workers and federally regulated employers.“We have been alarmed at the growing readiness of the federal government to intervene in labour relations, to terminate collective bargaining, to end legal strikes and to even outlaw legal strikes before they begin,” said Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, in testimony before the Senate transport and communications committee. “Ottawa’s readiness to intervene poisons collective bargaining. It encourages employers to expect and rely on government intervention.”The law in question, Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, allows the labour minister to take any measure deemed necessary “to maintain or secure industrial peace.” .The clause has been used to force binding arbitration in major disputes, including last August’s order halting a strike by 10,500 Air Canada flight attendants.Bruske said the airline had banked on government intervention and stopped bargaining seriously. “Air Canada was so confident Ottawa would step in that it didn’t bother to take adequate precautions or inform passengers about a potential disruption,” she said.Sen. Donna Dasko questioned why the government had grown so quick to invoke the clause. .“Why are they doing this now?” she asked. Bruske replied that the measure had become a “politically expedient” substitute for back-to-work legislation, which requires parliamentary debate and a vote.Teamsters Canada Rail Conference president Paul Boucher said cabinet’s interference had also damaged labour relations in the rail sector. Section 107 was used twice since 2024 to block strikes at Canadian Pacific and Canadian National.“They didn’t get what they wanted, and neither did we, and nobody won,” Boucher told senators. .“The best deals are made at the table, not through forced arbitration.” He warned that repeated use of Section 107 “emboldens federally regulated employers” and undermines workers’ constitutional right to strike.Labour Minister Patty Hajdu has defended the government’s use of the clause, saying she dislikes the disruption caused by strikes. “Strikes are very disruptive to the culture of the organization,” Hajdu said in August. “They’re very expensive for the members who lose pay and for the corporations that lose revenue and reputation every single day.”When asked whether her government is anti-union, Hajdu replied, “I absolutely reject the notion our government is anti-union.”
