Public complaints on the nightly news should not affect adherence to a country's constitution, as appears to be happening in Canada right now.

The Canadian Constitution is relevant to the Air Canada strike that began on August 16, 2025, primarily through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), representing approximately 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants, has argued that the federal government's intervention—specifically, Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu’s use of Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to order binding arbitration and end the strike—violates the Charter. Specifically, CUPE contends that this action infringes on the workers’ right to strike, which is protected under Section 2(d) of the Charter, guaranteeing freedom of association. This section has been interpreted by courts to include the right to collective bargaining and strike as essential components of workers’ rights to meaningfully associate.

The union has publicly stated its intent to challenge the back-to-work order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” arguing it undermines the Charter rights of flight attendants, 70% of whom are women, and forces them to perform unpaid work. This constitutional argument draws on legal precedents, such as the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision in *Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan*, which affirmed that the right to strike is protected under the Charter as an essential part of collective bargaining. CUPE’s defiance of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) order, issued on August 17, 2025, to resume operations, is grounded in this constitutional claim, as they assert the government’s intervention disrupts their fundamental rights.

Additionally, the repeated use of Section 107 by the Liberal government in recent labor disputes (e.g., at ports, rail yards, and Canada Post) has led unions, including CUPE, to pursue legal challenges, arguing that such interventions unconstitutionally restrict their bargaining power and right to strike. The union has also raised concerns about a conflict of interest with the CIRB chair, Maryse Tremblay, due to her prior role as legal counsel for Air Canada, which could further bolster their constitutional challenge by questioning the impartiality of the process.

However, the government justifies its intervention by citing the economic impact of the strike, with approximately 130,000 passengers affected daily, including 25,000 Canadians stranded abroad. The use of Section 107 is framed as a measure to “maintain or secure industrial peace” under the Canada Labour Code, which the government argues is within its constitutional authority to regulate labor in federally regulated industries like aviation. This creates a tension between the government’s economic and regulatory priorities and the workers’ constitutional protections.

In summary, the Canadian Constitution, through the Charter’s protection of freedom of association, is directly relevant to the Air Canada strike due to CUPE’s claim that the government’s back-to-work order violates their right to strike. The outcome of any legal challenge would likely hinge on whether the court finds the government’s intervention to be a justified limitation under Section 1 of the Charter.