Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 332, Novembre 2003

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 25. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns lack of impartiality of the process of arbitration, at its March 2003 meeting [see 330th Report, paras. 28-31]. On that occasion, it stressed that chairpersons of arbitration boards should not only be strictly impartial but should also be seen to be so and urged the Government to take legislative measures to ensure that these principles were respected in the designation of arbitration boards and chairs, in order to gain and maintain the confidence of both sides in the system. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments and to provide it with a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in this matter once it would be issued.
2. 26. In a communication of 11 September 2003, the Government informed the Committee that the Supreme Court of Canada had rendered its decision on 16 May 2003, dismissing the appeal of the Ontario Ministry of Labour. The Court stated, inter alia: that labour arbitration as a dispute-resolution mechanism has traditionally and functionally rested on a consensual basis, with the arbitrator chosen by, or being acceptable to, both parties; that if the purpose of compulsory arbitration is to ensure that the loss of bargaining power through legislative prohibition of strikes is balanced by access to a fair and expeditious alternative system, the process must be perceived as neutral and credible in order to do so; and that neutrality, and the perception of neutrality, is bound up with an arbitrator’s training, experience and mutual acceptability.
3. 27. The Committee takes due note of that judgement and recalls, once again, that chairpersons of arbitration boards should not only be strictly impartial but also be seen to be so. The Committee thus urges the Government to take measures to ensure that these principles are respected in law and in practice in the designation of arbitration boards and chairs, in order to gain and maintain the confidence of both sides in the system. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments.