Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 202, Junio 1980

1. 18. The Committee has already examined this case on two occasions, the most recent of which was in May 1979, when it submitted definitive conclusions in paragraphs 92 to 118 of its 194th Report. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has since transmitted a communication dated 28 February 1960.
2. 19. Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), or the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 20. In its previous examination of this case, the Committee noted that the allegations concerned the Alberta Public Service Employee Relations Act, 1977 and the right to organise of academic staff members of colleges and universities in Alberta. Firstly, under the 1977 Act there was a general prohibition of the right to strike by public employees and a limitation of the scope of arbitration. Secondly, given that academic staff are excluded from the ambit of the Alberta Labour Act and the 1977 Act and given the inadequacies of the common law a.; regards collective bargaining, the CAUT asked for legislative intervention.
2. 21. In its reply, the Government explained why the 1977 Act contained a general prohibition of strikes by public employees and pointed out that matters, considered essential to the management and operation of government business, which were excluded from arbitration under the Act may be negotiated and that appeal rights exist. Regarding the right to organise of academic staff, the Government referred to provisions in the Universities Act and to practice in Alberta, and stated that it was prepared to consider a variety of options and had begun to explore alternatives.
3. 22. In its earlier conclusions on this case, the Committee referred to the right to strike, generally recognised as deriving from Article 3 of Convention No. 87, and the circumstances in which this right can be limited, concluding that it was inappropriate in this case to place all public establishments covered by the Act on the same footing as regards the prohibition of the right to strike. As regards the second complaint against the Act, the Committee followed the distinction made by the Fact-Finding and Conciliation commission or Freedom of Association (in its report on persons employed in the public sector in Japan) between matters appertaining primarily or essentially to the management and operation of government business - which can be reasonably regarded as outside the scope of negotiation - and those relating to conditions of employment, and came to the opinion that most of the points listed in the Act did relate to conditions of employment and therefore should not have been excluded from the scope of arbitration. Lastly, the Committee noted that under the Universities Act provisions existed for participation of teaching staff in university bodies and that collective bargaining took place although on an informal basis. It also noted with interest that the Government was prepared to examine a series of options and had begun to investigate other possibilities.