Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Preview Page

I.    INTRODUCTION

Compulsory arbitration statutes have sought to balance the interests of the public and unionized employees who have been denied the right to strike. The “balancing of interests” principle seeks to protect the public by preventing strikes involving essential services and safeguard employee interests by ensuring arbitration outcomes are comparable with freely negotiated settlements.  Turbulent economic conditions have intensified criticism that the arbitration system is not accountable to the public.  This reflects government and public sector management concerns that arbitration has a significant impact on wages and these outcomes are not aligned with fiscal plans and the interests of taxpayers.

This paper examines compulsory arbitration in Ontario, Canada’s largest province. For a half-century, compulsory arbitration has been relied on to resolve collective bargaining disputes involving essential services. Its widest application is in health care, primarily hospitals, public long-term care facilities, and private nursing and retirement homes.  Other statutes regulate compulsory arbitration in the municipal sector and include police, firefighters, ambulance services and urban transit in Toronto.

The paper begins with an overview of the factors arbitrators have relied on to settle interest disputes. Next, we examine the government’s response to the global economic crisis and its aftermath. Specifically, this includes the adoption of austerity budgets and wage restraint measures that were the centerpiece of deficit reduction plans and renewed calls for reforming the interest arbitration system. To assess the impact of austerity policies and proposed arbitration reforms on the arbitration process and outcomes, we analyze compulsory arbitration awards issued between 2010 and 2015. The implications of our findings are discussed in the conclusion.