The recent strike by Air Canada flight attendants has raised questions about the federal government's intervention strategies in labor disputes. Experts suggest that the defiance shown by the flight attendants could set a new precedent for future work stoppages in Canada.

More than 10,000 flight attendants initiated a strike at 1 a.m. on August 16, leading to a complete halt of Air Canada flights. Shortly after, the airline locked out the workers. Within 12 hours, Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu invoked Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, which allows the government to intervene in industrial disputes. This section enables the labor minister to promote conditions favorable for settling disputes, including referring matters to the labor board.

However, Barry Eidlin, an associate professor of sociology at McGill University, criticized the government's repeated use of this regulation. He described it as a "novel interpretation" of its powers, especially since it has been used to end strikes by rail and port workers since 2023. Eidlin noted that there are ongoing constitutional challenges regarding the use of Section 107, which have yet to be resolved in court. He stated, "There’s a valid argument to be made that the legal standing of our constitutional right to strike far exceeds this novel interpretation of this obscure part of the Canada Labour Code."

Despite the government's order for the flight attendants to return to work, union officials defied it, leading the labor board to declare the strike unlawful. The workers remained on the picket lines until negotiations resumed, resulting in a tentative agreement on August 19.

Eidlin believes this situation could embolden unions in future strikes and make the government reconsider its use of Section 107. He remarked, "It certainly opens the gates. I think that it will show other unions that they don’t just have to take the order of the industrial relations board to go back to work at face value."

Brock University labor professor Larry Savage added that while the Air Canada strike may have dampened the use of Section 107, it does not mean the government will stop intervening in labor disputes. He stated, "That’s wishful thinking," and noted that the government could turn to traditional back-to-work legislation instead.

Savage explained that the Liberal government has used Section 107 as a workaround to avoid parliamentary debate, which is required for passing back-to-work legislation. He predicted a potential "strong counteroffensive" from employers, who may seek to classify certain jobs as essential services to limit workers' rights to strike.

The flight attendants' ability to leverage public support during the strike played a crucial role in their negotiations. Savage noted, "It was a calculated risk in the end, but it was a risk that paid off."

The tentative agreement reached between Air Canada and the flight attendants still requires ratification. Members of the Air Canada component of the Canadian Union of Public Employees began voting on the deal, with the voting period set to conclude on September 6. If the agreement is not ratified, all terms except those related to wages will still form part of a new collective agreement. The wages portion would then go to arbitration, where a third-party arbitrator would make a final decision.

Eidlin emphasized that the concessions made by Air Canada demonstrate that employers must engage in negotiations, stating, "It shows employers that they don’t have a get-out-of-jail-free card."