•  
  •  
 

University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review

Abstract

Labor law refers to the regulation of the relationship between employees and their employers. The main principle of labor law protection is the employees’ right to collectively bargain. This principle has served as a cornerstone of industrialized society since the beginning of the twentieth century, helping increase workplace equality. A comparison of labor laws in the United States and Canada offers a unique perspective, as these two North American countries share an almost identical foundation that has evolved in distinct ways over time. A strong distinction between the two systems is the adopted doctrine of preemption by the U.S., leaving the regulation of labor law almost entirely to the federal government. Comparatively, Canada has left most of this power to the individual provinces. This structural difference triggers outcomes that continue to raise concerns for U.S. workers.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently analyzed the issue of preemption in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. In Glacier, the Court held that an employer may sue a union for property damage that occurs during a strike in state court. This decision sheds light on how U.S. labor laws could change in the near future. Over the past year, unionization and strikes in America have skyrocketed, underscoring the urgent need for reform. This Note analyzes the differences between the two systems by beginning with a historical approach to highlight the developmental factors that produced diverse outcomes. While scholars have long discussed the shortcomings of the Wagner Act, this Note leverages the Glacier case to highlight the direction the U.S. is heading. It draws on a comparative examination of the Canadian framework and proposes a mirrored structure that will foster innovation and security for American workers, who lie at the heart of the nation’s social and economic fabric.

Download

Share

COinS