Reliance on courts and judicial means over strikes and negotiation in Labor Politics

Abstract The twenty-first century has seen reliance on courts and judicial means rather than strikes and negotiations in addressing core predicaments, political controversies, and public policy questions. Courts have been at center stage in resolving labor disputes. One of the most notable judicial means of resolving Supreme Court cases was the Canadian Supreme Court ruling that collective bargaining was protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Apart from this, striking is a social practice embedded deeply in the history of Canada. The Court is likely to consider the history of labor law to determine if the freedom of strike is also protected by the constitution. It is the possibility of a strike that enables workers to negotiate with employers in the present state of society as unions themselves are unable to secure terms of approximate equality. A compromised, suppressed, or limited trade union movement transforms into a capitalistic institution for disciplining workers and profit-making. This paper looks into why labor unions win court cases since 1982 in the face of the fact that freedom of association and the right to strike is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom