Industrial Conflict and Resolution in Canada and Britain
| Published date | 01 February 1990 |
| Pages | 12-18 |
| Date | 01 February 1990 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001022 |
| Author | Larry Haiven |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
12 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN CANADA; CONTEMPORARY COMPARISONS AND CHANGE
W
hy does Canada suffer a greater
volume and incidence of strike activity
than Britain?
A
comparative analysis of
industrial relations policies explores this issue.
Industrial
Conflict and
Resolution
in Canada
and Britain
Larry Haiven
Introduction
In the realm of industrial conflict, Canada and Britain
provide a most interesting comparison. Both countries
have a largely adversarial industrial relations system
wherein the parties choose not to engage in extensive co-
determination on the Northern European model but rather
settle major differences by periodic contests of economic
power. Largely decentralised collective bargaining now
characterises both countries.
Yet
while the parties
in
both
countries have hesitated to engage in co-management,
they have co-operated in developing a "semi-
constitutional" system
[1]
where
procedural
rules are laid
out in a fairly explicit, jointly accepted collective
agreement. While there has been more Canadian state
intervention in collective bargaining procedure, both
Canadian and British states have refrained from
intervention in the
substance
or outcomes of collective
bargaining (except on the few occasions in the
1970s
where
incomes policies were imposed in both countries).
Divergences and Intuitive Predictions
The greatest divergence between the two countries arises
in the procedure for resolving disputes. Since 1944,
Canadian provincial and federal governments have sought
to regulate industrial conflict
by a
discrete interventionist
formula. Its three pillars are legally enforceable collective
agreements meant to circumscribe disputable issues; the
outlawing of strikes during the term of those agreements
and the substitution, for industrial action, of
a
prescribed
procedure to settle the disputable issues arising during
that term. In comparison, British governments have taken
an almost entirely
"hands-off"
attitude towards the
regulation of industrial conflict.
A
cursory look at the characteristics of
dispute
resolution
in the two countries practically compels the prediction
of
a higher level of industrial conflict in Britain. First, and
perhaps most important, while Canadian unions can strike
only after
a
collective agreement (of
at
least one and more
often two or three years' duration) has expired, no such
legal
prohibition exists
in
Britain.
British
workers
can strike
at any time on
any
issue related to the workplace. Second,
in most Canadian jurisdictions public employees above
municipal level
(including
both government employees and
fire, hospital and policy employees) are barred entirely
from striking. In Britain, for the most part, public
employees are not similarly barred. Third, Canadian
collective agreements are legally
binding.
In Britain, they
are not and enforcement is only by mutual desire of the
parties to honour them or by industrial action. Fourth,
due to the above conditions, the distinction between rights
and interests disputes, while crystal clear in Canada, is
very muddy indeed in Britain. Indeed, disputes are often
over
a
combination of rule-making and rule interpretation.
Fifth, while the Canadian collective agreement
circumscribes all disputable issues, precluding those
outside, in Britain all workplace issues are disputable,
whether they are
in
the collective agreement or
not.
Sixth,
because issues outside the Canadian collective agreement
are precluded and managerial prerogative prevails, those
collective agreements tend to be quite precise and the
scope for interpretation small. British, collective
agreements, on the other hand, are quite indeterminate
and open to interpretation. Seventh, the indeterminacy
of the British collective agreement coexists with an
extensive body of "custom and
practice"
which, especially
in well-organised union shops, forms the real body of
law
governing the workplace. In Canada by comparison, the
use of past practice in dispute resolution is still
rudimentary[2].
Eighth, those issues in Canada which
are
disputable have
long been handled through formal and well-defined
grievance procedures with a minimum of informality. In
Britain, formal disputes procedures at workplace level
were a rarity before the 1970s[3]. Even though now
widespread, they are often vague and are often bypassed
by the parties if
it
suits their purposes. While unions pay
lip-service to the concept of delaying strike action until
procedure is exhausted, they are under no obligation to
To continue reading
Request your trial