Bill 124 ruled unconstitutional by Appeal Court and there are plans to repeal Wage-Cap Law

BY PAUL JUNOR

It has been four years now since the Doug Ford PC-led government enacted Bill 124. It was known as the wage-cap law, and it limits salary increases for public sector workers at one percent for three years. The government argued that it was necessary to enforce this draconian law as a way of trying to deal with the provincial deficit.

The Ontario Appeal Court states, “Because of this Act, organized public sector workers many of whom are: women, racialized, and/or low-income earners, have lost the ability to negotiate for better compensation, or even better work conditions” In response to the ruling, the provincial government issued a press release indicating that it will not appeal the decision and that there will be a forthcoming bill that repeals Bill 124. The press release states, “To solve for the inequality of workers created by today’s court decision, the province will urgently introduce legislations to exempt non-unionized and non-associated workers from Bill 124 until it is repealed.”

The Appeal Court mentioned that the government has the right to try to ensure that compensation increases are maintained at a certain level, but the key issue is how it goes about doing this. The Court specifies that Ontario has not been able to explain why wage restraint could not have been achieved through good faith bargaining. In the absence of any evidence for the need for expediency, or that the same goal cannot be achieved through collective bargaining, it is hard to understand on what basis the Act’s salutary effects outweigh its beneficial effects.

There was a mistake done when the lower court struck down the entire statute. Both unionized and non-unionized workers were impacted by Bill 124. The Appeal Court mentioned that it is unconstitutional for unionized workers only because non-unionized workers bargain collectively and thus it does not apply to them.

Justice C. William in his dissenting opposition expressed concerns that the imposition of wage restraint was economically justifiable, and that the government made this decision in place of cutting services or jobs. He writes, “According to the application judge’s analysis, it would be permissible for the government to temporarily reduce wage costs when the economy was on the brink of collapse, but it would be unconstitutional for the government to act proactively to prevent the inevitable. If the government sees an economic cliff on the horizon, courts should not require it to wait till the last moment to act.”

Erin Ariss (President of the Ontario Nurses’ Association) states, “This sham of a bill has severely impacted access to and quality of care for Ontarians since 2019. The trauma inflicted on nurses and health care professionals because of Bill 124 has driven tens of thousands of us out of the healthcare system and away from the work that we love.”

Steven Barrett, a lawyer for the Ontario Federation of Labour states, “I’m feeling like most broader public sector workers across Ontario: vindicated. The Court of Appeal is clear that: freedom of association, the protection of collective bargaining, and the right to strike actually are meaningful.”

The president of CUPE’s Ontario Council and SEIU Healthcare released a joint statement. It reads, “We urge Doug Ford to end his attacks on the very people we need to fix Ontario’s worsening health-care system.”

A statement from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario states, “Let the court’s ruling be a lesson for the Ford government to never circumvent bargaining or trample on worker’ democratic rights again.”