For many years, workers petitioned the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in labour relations to protect their collective bargaining rights. Finally, the Court answered the call, but the drastic changes made were not what workers expected. This thesis outlines the effect that the Court’s decision to intervene in labour relations had on the existing collective bargaining model. In making this determination, a historical analysis was done of the Court’s attitude towards using section 2(d) Freedom to Associate to protect collective bargaining, followed by a comparative analysis with United States jurisprudence to explain the effect of the Canadian decisions on the statutory provisions. The analysis revealed that the decisions had significantly weakened protections for workers’ rights, and provided the basis to conclude that the Supreme Court of Canada had used the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deradicalize the existing collective bargaining model.

For many years, workers petitioned the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in labour relations to protect their collective bargaining rights. Finally, the Court answered the call, but the drastic changes made were not what workers expected. This thesis outlines the effect that the Court’s decision to intervene in labour relations had on the existing collective bargaining model. In making this determination, a historical analysis was done of the Court’s attitude towards using section 2(d) Freedom to Associate to protect collective bargaining, followed by a comparative analysis with United States jurisprudence to explain the effect of the Canadian decisions on the statutory provisions. The analysis revealed that the decisions had significantly weakened protections for workers’ rights, and provided the basis to conclude that the Supreme Court of Canada had used the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deradicalize the existing collective bargaining model.