À propos des grèves perlées, du zèle et autres actions collectives :

les frontières du droit de grève en débat

Abstract

Recognized in 2015 as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court, the right to strike remains, ten years later, a rare privilege in both Canada and Quebec. It is still heavily contested and, in all cases, reserved for a minority of unionized workers, exercisable only during a strictly limited period and subject to numerous restrictions, including the maintenance of essential services. Moreover, it protects workers only in cases of a complete work stoppage, since alternative forms of collective action—such as work-to-rule actions, slowdown strikes, and workplace occupations—are most often treated as an unacceptable prejudice to the employer and are accordingly prohibited. Drawing on the work of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and an analysis of Quebec case law, this article questions and contests the boundaries of the right to strike. More specifically, in a context marked by “authoritarian drift,” this article defends a broad definition of that right, that is, one that protects various forms of strike action and collective action short of a complete work stoppage, in order to give meaningful effect to this fundamental right, which the Supreme Court itself has described as essential to “the fostering of democracy.”