Thursday, September 15, 2011

SFL files legal argument in massive law suit against government

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour
September 15, 2011

Over the summer months, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and 25 additional plaintiffs (SFL et al) filed their legal argument in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench related to the Charter Challenge by the SFL et al against the Sask. Party government's unconstitutional anti-worker and anti-union legislation. Legislation which the Wall government introduced and passed in late 2007 and early 2008.

In what is arguably the largest lawsuit ever filed by working men and women against a sitting government in Saskatchewan (and quite possibly Canadian) history, the SFL filed its 230 page legal argument and tendered thousands of pages of evidence.

In support of the SFL et al's case, three additional intervenor unions filed thousands more pages of argument and evidence. The arguments of the intervenor unions re-inforced that the ill-conceived Bill 5 and Bill 6 violate workers constitutional rights as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The intervenor unions are: Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE); Service Employees International Union - West (SEIU-West); and the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses (SUN)

In addition to the Charter Challenge, the SFL and the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union (SGEU) won a case in March 2009 wherein the Sask. Party government was found guilty of violating Saskatchewan workers international human rights by the United Nations International Labour Organization .

The ILO requested that the Sask. Party government take action to repair the offending legislation in consultation with representatives of the labour movement. The government has steadfastly refused to comply with the ILO ruling and refuses to meet with the labour movement to discuss the matter.

This historic Charter Challenge case will be heard in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench from November 14 - 25th, 2011.

Download PDF's of the unions' legal arguments below:

No comments:

Post a Comment