Accueil
| Titre : | Access to Justice for Gig Workers: Contrasting Answers from Canadian and American Courts (2020) |
| Auteurs : | Urwana Coiquaud ; Isabelle Martin |
| Type de document : | Article : texte imprimé |
| Dans : | Relations industrielles / Industrial relations (vol. 75, n° 3, Eté 2020) |
| Article en page(s) : | pp. 582–593 |
| Langues: | Anglais |
| Catégories : |
Thésaurus CEREQ ECONOMIE NUMERIQUE ; CONDUCTEUR LIVREUR ; CHAUFFEUR TAXI ; STATUT ; CONFLIT DU TRAVAIL ; JUSTICE ; LEGISLATION DU TRAVAIL ; ONTARIO ; ETATS UNISOrganisme Cité Uber |
| Résumé : | With the introduction of digital platforms in the Canadian labour law’s landscape comes an increased used of agreements imposing arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. To challenge their classification as independent workers and gain employment standards acts’ protection, gig workers therefore need to submit their disputes to a private proceeding, often located outside Canada. It is in this context that the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision to invalidate the arbitration clause in Heller v Uber Technologies Inc. must be read. Having granted leave for appeal, will the Supreme Court of Canada follow in the footsteps of American law and allow mandatory arbitration agreements to impede collective actions challenging the misclassification of gig workers? Our study of the Ontarian and American decisions regarding the validity of mandatory arbitration agreements between Uber and its drivers brings to light the determining impact of the approach chosen by courts. |
| Document Céreq : | Non |
| En ligne : | https://doi.org/10.7202/1072349ar |
