Why government intervention in strikes is bad news for employers

Are employers like Air Canada increasingly counting on goverment intervention when it comes to disruptive labour action?

Aaron Zaltzman, associate at Whitten and Lublin, thinks so. He says the airline's response to the strike “was proof that employers are relying on it, that it is a precedent."

At the heart of the issue is Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, a provision that allows the federal government to end otherwise legal strikes by forcing binding arbitration. 

Zaltzman says the system was built to limit wildcat strikes and direct action in exchange for easier union recognition, but it has also allowed employers to count on Ottawa stepping in when work stoppages grow disruptive. 

“It was never supposed to be a case where the employer would just say, 'We don’t really have to negotiate in good faith, because as soon as the strike gets too disruptive, the government’s going to step in and force them into arbitration,’” he says.

Government overreach and the erosion of labour peace

For Air Canada, the reliance was obvious. Zaltzman notes that the CEO admitted the company had no real contingency plan for passengers, since they expected intervention. But the bigger concern, he argues, is with Ottawa, which has turned to Section 107 repeatedly – four or five times in just the past 18 months – to shut down strikes it deemed too disruptive.

That frequency has consequences for collective bargaining. Employers know arbitration rarely leaves them worse off than a strike settlement would, but it shields them from the one thing they fear most: disruption to operations and profits, he says. 

“It’s not good for negotiations, and it’s actively bad for labour peace, if employers believe that the federal government is going to intervene more or less on their side to break up a disruptive strike,” Zaltzman explains. "The reason I believe it’s bad for labour peace is because if the employer does not uphold their end of the deal, unions are not going to sit idly by and let that happen, and the entire legal framework will fall apart."

For employers, that shift is risky. Reliance on Ottawa may no longer be enough to prevent prolonged disruption. 

“Even if they do [intervene], you might face a union that says, 'We don’t care. We’ll go to jail. We’re still going to make your life difficult,’” Zaltzman says. 

Why employers can’t rely on Ottawa for heavy lifting

The lesson for management is simple but uncomfortable: don’t count on government intervention as a fallback strategy, he says, warning that Section 107, once obscure, has quickly become politicized, and its limits are now clearer. 

Employers who assume Ottawa will always bail them out may find themselves facing unions prepared to defy arbitration orders, even at the risk of legal consequences, says Zaltzman. That assumption removes the incentive for employers to bargain seriously, leaving unions with little choice but to escalate.

“Trends can change quickly,” he says. “The best thing that employers can do for themselves is to always be negotiating in good faith because bad faith negotiations do not encourage good faith responses.”