Mandating Back to Work: A Troubling History in Canada

On August 16, 2025, Canada’s Liberal government invoked Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to mandate more than 10,000 striking Air Canada flight attendants back to work. The walkout, led by CUPE, had barely begun before the Ministry of Jobs intervened, citing economic harm and disruption to air travel. To many Canadians, it was déjà vu. This is not the first time Ottawa has wielded its extraordinary back-to-work powers—and each time, the decision has sparked heated debate about workers’ rights, government overreach, and the balance between the economy and democracy.

The Controversial Power to Override Strikes

The right to strike is enshrined in Canadian labour law and, since 2015, recognized by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, when strikes disrupt what the federal government deems “essential” sectors—transportation, mail delivery, ports, or railways—Ottawa has repeatedly stepped in with legislation or emergency powers to end labour action. This power is highly controversial: it pits the right of free citizens to withdraw their labour against the state’s insistence on maintaining economic stability.

The recent Air Canada intervention has reignited this debate, with critics asking: if government can force flight attendants back to work, where does it stop? What precedent does this set for future disputes across other industries?

A History of Federal Back-to-Work Orders

Back-to-work legislation is not new in Canada. Since the 1950s, both Liberal and Conservative governments have used it as a blunt instrument in labour disputes. A closer look reveals a troubling pattern: no matter which party is in power, Ottawa has shown a willingness to suspend workers’ rights in the name of protecting the economy.

1950s–1970s: The Early Years

The first wave of back-to-work laws came during railway strikes in the postwar period. Rail was the backbone of Canada’s economy, and both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments rushed to end strikes by ordering workers back on the job. By the 1970s, back-to-work laws had been deployed over a dozen times, often targeting postal workers and longshoremen.

1980s–1990s: The Postal Worker Showdowns

Perhaps no sector has faced Ottawa’s heavy hand more than Canada Post. Strikes in 1981, 1987, and 1997 were all ended by government intervention. In 1997, Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government legislated 45,000 postal workers back to work after a two-week strike, citing the need to keep mail moving for businesses during the holiday season. Critics argued the government was siding with Canada Post management instead of allowing fair bargaining.

2000s: Railways and Air Transport

Labour disputes in federally regulated transportation industries became frequent targets. In 2009, the Conservative government under Stephen Harper legislated Canadian National Railway workers back to work after a strike threatened to paralyze shipping. The government justified its move by pointing to billions of dollars in potential economic losses.

2011–2012: The Harper Government and Canada Post, Air Canada

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives became synonymous with aggressive back-to-work legislation. In 2011, postal workers went on strike again. The Harper government not only legislated them back to work but imposed wages lower than what Canada Post had already offered—an unprecedented show of government siding with management.

That same year, Air Canada faced a series of strikes by flight attendants and mechanics. Each time, the Harper government stepped in to block the strike or refer the matter to arbitration, insisting that air travel was too vital to be disrupted. Labour groups decried the government’s actions as union-busting through legislation.

2018: Trudeau and the Postal Strike

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government followed in Harper’s footsteps. In late 2018, Canada Post workers staged rotating strikes over pay equity and working conditions. After weeks of disruption during the holiday season, the Liberals passed emergency back-to-work legislation. Union leaders argued the government had undermined collective bargaining and ignored systemic issues facing postal employees. The law was challenged in court, with critics claiming it violated Charter rights.

2025: Air Canada Flight Attendants

And now, in 2025, history repeats itself. The Liberals once again invoked their power, this time using Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to force flight attendants back on the job just hours after they walked off. The justification: to protect the economy and ensure “industrial peace.” To workers and many Canadians, it felt like a crushing blow to their democratic rights.

Who Uses It More: Conservatives or Liberals?

Looking at the historical record, it’s clear that both parties have leaned heavily on back-to-work powers. Conservatives have tended to be more aggressive, especially under Harper, who viewed strikes as a threat to economic growth. Liberals, on the other hand, often claim reluctance but ultimately intervene, usually citing “timing” (holiday shopping, travel seasons, supply chain crises).

The truth is less about party ideology and more about a bipartisan willingness to sacrifice labour rights for short-term economic stability. In practice, Canadian workers cannot depend on either side of the political spectrum to protect their Charter right to strike.

The Bigger Question: Is This Even Constitutional?

The Supreme Court has ruled that collective bargaining and striking are constitutionally protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Each time Ottawa forces workers back, it enters murky legal waters. While courts have sometimes upheld these laws, critics argue that they fundamentally undermine the right to free association and protest.

If governments can order flight attendants, postal workers, or railway employees back to work, what’s to stop them from applying the same logic to teachers, nurses, or other groups? By normalizing emergency back-to-work orders, Canada risks eroding the very freedoms that distinguish a democracy from a state that treats citizens as mere economic units.

A Precedent We Shouldn’t Accept

The August 16 order against Air Canada flight attendants is more than a labour relations issue—it’s a test of Canadian democracy. Do we truly value the right of workers to withdraw their labour, or are those rights conditional on whether the government finds it economically convenient?

Each time Ottawa invokes back-to-work powers, it sets a precedent that expands state authority at the expense of individual rights. Today it’s flight attendants; tomorrow it could be any worker who dares to challenge their employer.

Canadians should ask themselves: in a country that prides itself on freedom, is it acceptable for the federal government to strip workers of their most powerful tool of protest? If we allow this, our rights as “free” citizens may not be as secure as we think.