国家的馈赠与索取:加拿大公共部门劳动法、立法否决权的合法性和宪法结社自由

IF 0.8 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Claire Mummé
{"title":"国家的馈赠与索取:加拿大公共部门劳动法、立法否决权的合法性和宪法结社自由","authors":"Claire Mummé","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the role of courts and legislatures in the design and enforcement of labour laws in the context of public sector employment. It does so by focusing on government employers’ legislative ability to temporarily override public sector labour rights, or to displace outcomes achieved under their processes. This issue is analysed through a case study of Canada, a country which offers constitutional protections for freedom of association, but which is also constructing a highly deferential approach to the constitutional review of override statutes. As a result of this deference, governments have been afforded significant leeway in the use and design of override legislation, which serves to undermine the legitimacy of the underlying public sector labour law regime. The result is to shake the confidence of public sector employees in the promise of workplace power redistribution and workplace voice and to undermine the legitimacy of public sector labour law. Because override legislation can so fundamentally undermine public sector labour rights, the courts should avoid excessive deference and instead undertake an active constitutional review of their use, where constitutional protections are available.\nJudicial Deference; Public Sector Labour Law; Legislative Override; Freedom of Association; section 2(D); The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; The Expenditure Restraint Act, Pre-Legislative Consultation; Legitimacy; Special Interests","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The State Giveth and Taketh Away: Public Sector Labour Law, the Legitimacy of the Legislative Override Power and Constitutional Freedom of Association in Canada\",\"authors\":\"Claire Mummé\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/ijcl2020025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article investigates the role of courts and legislatures in the design and enforcement of labour laws in the context of public sector employment. It does so by focusing on government employers’ legislative ability to temporarily override public sector labour rights, or to displace outcomes achieved under their processes. This issue is analysed through a case study of Canada, a country which offers constitutional protections for freedom of association, but which is also constructing a highly deferential approach to the constitutional review of override statutes. As a result of this deference, governments have been afforded significant leeway in the use and design of override legislation, which serves to undermine the legitimacy of the underlying public sector labour law regime. The result is to shake the confidence of public sector employees in the promise of workplace power redistribution and workplace voice and to undermine the legitimacy of public sector labour law. Because override legislation can so fundamentally undermine public sector labour rights, the courts should avoid excessive deference and instead undertake an active constitutional review of their use, where constitutional protections are available.\\nJudicial Deference; Public Sector Labour Law; Legislative Override; Freedom of Association; section 2(D); The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; The Expenditure Restraint Act, Pre-Legislative Consultation; Legitimacy; Special Interests\",\"PeriodicalId\":44213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文调查了法院和立法机构在公共部门就业背景下劳动法的设计和执行中的作用。它通过关注政府雇主暂时凌驾于公共部门劳工权利的立法能力,或取代在其程序下取得的成果,来实现这一点。这个问题是通过对加拿大的一个个案研究来分析的,加拿大在宪法上保护结社自由,但它也在对推翻法律的宪法审查采取高度恭敬的办法。由于这种服从,各国政府在使用和设计凌驾法律方面获得了很大的回旋余地,这破坏了公共部门基本劳工法制度的合法性。其结果是动摇公共部门雇员对职场权力再分配和职场话语权承诺的信心,并破坏公共部门劳动法的合法性。由于推翻立法可以从根本上破坏公共部门的劳工权利,法院应避免过度服从,而应在宪法提供保护的情况下,对其使用进行积极的宪法审查。司法尊重;公共部门劳动法;立法覆盖;结社自由;第二节(D);《加拿大权利和自由宪章》;《开支限制法案》的立法前咨询合法性;特殊利益集团
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The State Giveth and Taketh Away: Public Sector Labour Law, the Legitimacy of the Legislative Override Power and Constitutional Freedom of Association in Canada
This article investigates the role of courts and legislatures in the design and enforcement of labour laws in the context of public sector employment. It does so by focusing on government employers’ legislative ability to temporarily override public sector labour rights, or to displace outcomes achieved under their processes. This issue is analysed through a case study of Canada, a country which offers constitutional protections for freedom of association, but which is also constructing a highly deferential approach to the constitutional review of override statutes. As a result of this deference, governments have been afforded significant leeway in the use and design of override legislation, which serves to undermine the legitimacy of the underlying public sector labour law regime. The result is to shake the confidence of public sector employees in the promise of workplace power redistribution and workplace voice and to undermine the legitimacy of public sector labour law. Because override legislation can so fundamentally undermine public sector labour rights, the courts should avoid excessive deference and instead undertake an active constitutional review of their use, where constitutional protections are available. Judicial Deference; Public Sector Labour Law; Legislative Override; Freedom of Association; section 2(D); The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; The Expenditure Restraint Act, Pre-Legislative Consultation; Legitimacy; Special Interests
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Published four times a year, the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations is an essential source of information and analysis for labour lawyers, academics, judges, policymakers and others. The Journal publishes original articles in the domains of labour law (broadly understood) and industrial relations. Articles cover comparative and international (or regional) analysis of topical issues, major developments and innovative practices, as well as discussions of theoretical and methodological approaches. The Journal adopts a double-blind peer review process. A distinguished editorial team, with the support of an International Advisory Board of eminent scholars from around the world, ensures a continuing high standard of scientific research dealing with a range of important issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信