At 1 a.m. on August 16, 2023, more than 10,000 flight attendants at Air Canada walked out of their jobs and struck. With this move, they stopped all flights the airline was operating. Air Canada worked effectively and swiftly to counter the labor action. They locked out their other flight attendants just hours after the strike started. The sudden stop of service stranded millions of commuters and prompted sharp bipartisan outrage that led to urgent federal action to get things running smoothly again.
She asked for the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) to intervene and bring an end to the strike. But she chose to invoke the rarely used Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code — just under 12 hours after the work stoppage started. This attempt was meant to pressure both sides into binding arbitration. This section has been the focus of fierce contention. Its use is becoming all too routine in similar labor disputes across the country.
The CIRB’s involvement is not an isolated incident. The Liberal government has employed Section 107 multiple times in recent months to address strikes involving rail and port workers. Labor studies specialist Barry Eidlin termed this growing habit a “serious erosion” of the right to strike in Canada. He derided the government’s approach as a “novel interpretation” of its authority. This drastic and dangerous move would set a terrible precedent for future labor relations.
“There’s a valid argument to be made that … the legal standing of our constitutional right to strike far exceeds this novel interpretation of this obscure part of the Canada Labour Code and so we are within our rights to defy this order because it’s not a legitimate order.” – Barry Eidlin
In short, the flight attendants struck hard on their picket lines. In the interim, negotiations had resumed between Air Canada and their union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). It took almost a week of contentious negotiations, but by August 19, the two sides agreed on a tentative deal. The closure agreement was a relief to many as it stopped any further escalation in the dispute.
The period of voting on this tentative deal is to end on September 6. CUPE cautions that, if union members vote down the offer, a new collective agreement with Air Canada would nevertheless remain in force. This contract would lay out all terms of the agreement, minus wages. Only the wages portion is still headed to arbitration. In the end, terms of the wage finalization would be left to a third-party arbitrator.
Eidlin’s concerns resonate with many labor advocates who see the ongoing developments as part of a broader pattern that threatens workers’ rights. As troubling, he noted that government intervention in labor disputes is increasing. This worrying trend would stymie unions’ ability to exercise their right to strike in a meaningful way.
“I think that it will show other unions that they don’t just have to take the order of the industrial relations board to go back to work at face value.” – Barry Eidlin
Analysts have pointed out that Air Canada’s management mishandled the situation, leading to unnecessary escalation. Larry Savage, a labor relations scholar who has closely followed the issues, commented on the employer strategy’s over-dependence on proactive government intervention response.
“Air Canada’s management bungled this labour dispute very badly … but I think that employers will instinctively still try to rely on government to help them out when it comes to labour relations,” – Larry Savage
The future of labor relations in Canada rests on how we settle these disputes. It hinges on us continuing to defend workers’ rights from government overreach. The impact of today’s tentative agreement vote results will have a direct impact on Air Canada flight attendants. It would set a huge national standard for recurring labor negotiations in numerous key industries.
