Technological Change and Collective Bargaining in Canada
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425458910133996 |
| Published date | 01 April 1989 |
| Pages | 17-20 |
| Date | 01 April 1989 |
| Author | Thomas R. Knight,David C. McPhillips |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN
CANADA
by Thomas R. Knight and David C. McPhillips
Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Technological change is a recurrent issue in North American industrial relations. During the
1960s,
considerable concern and collective bargaining activity were aroused by the perceived
threat to employment security posed by automation and other production innovations that
increased production speeds and reduced staffing requirements (see, for example, Dunlop[1]).
In the United States, collective bargaining responses to automation frequently took the form
of ad hoc arrangements to cushion workers from the displacement effects of technological
change while allowing management to take advantage of production advances[2]. The
Canadian response, by contrast, involved high-level government enquiry[3] and, as will be
discussed further, public policy initiatives intended to foster anticipatory collective bargaining
over the effects of technological change.
During the 1980s, the microelectronic revolution
has renewed interest in technological change as
a subject of collective bargaining in both countries.
This article summarises the current state of public
policy and collective bargaining over the effects
of technological innovation in Canada. Where
appropriate, we compare the Canadian experience
with the prevailing legal and bargaining approaches
in the US. This summary will cover both the
"traditional"
technological change issues that
emerged in the 1960s and the more recent
concerns of labour in the face of microelectronic
innovations. While the former set of issues can be
discussed in terms of the actual prevalence of
collective agreement provisions, the latter group
can only be addressed in terms of labour's agenda
for bargaining, since the issues are so new that
negotiated provisions are not widespread.
The Canadian Public Policy Context
National labour policy in the US has varied over
the years on the degree to which technological
change is considered a mandatory (as opposed
to permissive) subject of collective bargaining over
which labour may strike to reinforce its bargaining
demands. Indeed, recent critiques of the distinction
between mandatory and permissive subjects of
bargaining under the US National Labour
Relations
Act have asserted that, under the Reagan
Administration in particular, the scope of
man-
datory bargaining has been narrowed so that that
technological change per
se
is effectively insulated
from collective bargaining[4,5].
The Canadian industrial relations system is relative-
ly decentralised. Compared with the dominant
federal jurisdiction in the US, the Canadian public
policy context consists of eleven jurisdictions —
ten provincial and the federal jurisdictions. Policy
makers in the Canadian jurisdictions have consis-
tently rejected the distinction between mandatory
and permissive subjects of collective bargaining[6].
Hence, no administrative limitations have ever been
applied to collective bargaining over technological
change in Canada.
On the contrary, labour legislation in three of the
provincial jurisdications (British Columbia,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba) and the federal
jurisdiction contain provisions encouraging
anticipatory bargaining over the effects of new
technology and expressly requiring that
management provide advance notice of impending
technological change.
The statutory provisions generally define
"technological change" as "the introduction by
an employer into his work, undertaking or business
of equipment or material of a different nature or
kind than that previously used by him...(and/or) a
change in the manner in which the employer
carries on the work, undertaking, or business that
is directly related to the introduction of that
equipment or material". The Saskatchewan
provision also includes "the removal by an
employer of any part of his work, undertaking or
business" within the definition.
Each of the statutory provisions requires that a
"significant" number of employees be affected by
ER 11,4
1989
17
To continue reading
Request your trial