Ms. Davies is right, and as recently as the most recent decision of the board, which is the case of Nav Canada, the board itself used the term “essential” or “non-essential” to determine what positions had to continue in the event of a strike or lockout.
It might be helpful to the committee members if I enunciated the principles that come out of the jurisprudence of the board. I know this was of concern to members earlier. These principles are drawn from a decision of the board made in October 2005 in the PSAC and 851791 Northwest Territories case, which I believe was the Fort Liard ferry case.
The board said that section 87.4 is directed specifically towards the prevention of an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public, as opposed to other matters of public interest that might be impacted by a labour dispute, and that mere inconvenience should not cause the board to decide that services are necessary in the interest of public of safety or health. The danger to safety or health of the public must be both immediate and serious--in other words, there has to be a connection between a work stoppage and the immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public--and it must be foreseeable.