Rosalie Abella gave the leading judgment, saying the following: 3 The conclusion that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations is supported by history, by jurisprudence, and by Canada's international obligations.

Because Saskatchewan's legislation abrogates the right to strike for a number of employees and provides no such alternative mechanism, it is unconstitutional.

[...] 53 In Health Services, this Court recognized that the Charter values of "[h]uman dignity, equality, liberty, respect for the autonomy of the person and the enhancement of democracy" supported protecting the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining within the scope of s. 2(d) (para.

In this way, the guarantee of freedom of association empowers vulnerable groups and helps them work to right imbalances in society.

The ability to strike thereby allows workers, through collective action, to refuse to work under imposed terms and conditions.

observed that [t]he role of association has always been vital as a means of protecting the essential needs and interests of working people.

70-71]Judy Fudge and Eric Tucker point out that it is "the possibility of the strike which enables workers to negotiate with their employers on terms of approximate equality" (p. 333).

Without it, "bargaining risks being inconsequential — a dead letter" (Prof. Michael Lynk, "Expert Opinion on Essential Services", at par.

56 In their dissent, my colleagues suggest that s. 2(d) should not protect strike activity as part of a right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining because "true workplace justice looks at the interests of all implicated parties" (para.

It drives us inevitably to Anatole France's aphoristic fallacy: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

And, as the trial judge recognized, strike action has the potential to place pressure on both sides of a dispute to engage in good faith negotiations.

But what it does permit is the employees' ability to engage in negotiations with an employer on a more equal footing (see Williams v. Aristocratic Restaurants (1947) Ltd., 1951 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1951] S.C.R.