Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:15:52.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making or Administering Law and Policy? Discretion and Judgment in Employment Standards Enforcement in Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2015

Eric Tucker ,
Alan Hall ,
Leah Vosko ,
Rebecca Hall  and
Elliot Siemiatycki
Eric Tucker
Affiliation:
Osgoode Hall Law [email protected]
Alan Hall
Affiliation:
Memorial University of [email protected]
Leah Vosko
Affiliation:
York [email protected]
Rebecca Hall
Affiliation:
York [email protected]
Elliot Siemiatycki
Affiliation:
York [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to advance an approach to analyzing decision-making by front line public officials. The notion of discretion in front line decision-making has been examined widely in the law and society literature. However, it has often failed to capture the different kinds and levels of decisions that enforcement officials make. Taking an interdisciplinary approach that draws on political, sociological, and legal analysis, we propose a new conceptual framework, one that draws a sharper distinction between discretion and judgment and teases out distinct levels in the scope and depth of decision-making. We then use this framework to create a conceptual map of the decision-making process of front-line officials charged with enforcing the Employment Standards Act (ESA) of Ontario, demonstrating that a deeper, more precise analysis of discretion and judgment can contribute to a richer understanding of front line decision-making and its social, political, and legal implications.

Résumé

Cette recherche a pour but de proposer une méthode d’analyse du processus décisionnel des fonctionnaires de première ligne. La notion de la discrétion dans la prise de décision de première ligne a été largement étudiée dans les domaines judiciaire et social. Toutefois, l’on n’a pas bien cerné les différents types et niveaux de décisions que prennent les responsables de l’application des lois. À l’aide d’une démarche interdisciplinaire s’inspirant d’analyses politiques, sociologiques et légales, nous proposons un nouveau cadre conceptuel qui fait la distinction entre la discrétion et le jugement et qui ventile les processus de prise de décision en fonction de leur envergure et profondeur. Nous employons ensuite ce cadre pour créer une carte conceptuelle des processus de prise de décision des fonctionnaires de première ligne chargés de l’application de la Loi sur les normes d’emploi de l’Ontario, démontrant qu’une analyse plus profonde et précise des notions de discrétion et de jugement peut contribuer à une meilleure compréhension du processus de prise de décision de première ligne et de ses répercussions sociales, politiques et légales.

Keywords

employment standardsfront-line enforcementdiscretionprecarious employmentfront-line decision-makingnormes d’emploiagents d’application de première lignediscrétionemploi précairedécisions de première ligne
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , April 2016 , pp. 65 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Black, Julia, and Baldwin, Robert. 2010. Really responsive risk-based regulation. Law and Policy 32 (2): 181–213.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Genevieve, and Carroll, Barbara W.. 2002. Policy-making and administrative discretion: The case of immigration in Canada. Canadian Public Administration 45 (2): 239–57.Google Scholar
Bovens, Mark, and Zouridis, Stavros. 2002. From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administration. Public Administration Review 62 (2): 174–85.Google Scholar
Carroll, Barbara W., and Siegel, David. 1999. Service in the field. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Cranford, Cynthia, Fudge, Judy, Tucker, Eric, and Vosko, Leah F.. 2005. Self-employed workers organize: Law, policy and unions. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durose, Catherine. 2011 Revisiting Lipsky: Front‐line work in UK local governance. Political studies 59 (4): 978–95.Google Scholar
Frank, Nancy. 1984. Policing corporate crime: A typology of enforcement styles. Justice Quarterly 1:235–51.Google Scholar
Fudge, Judy, Tucker, Eric, and Vosko, Leah F.. 2002. The legal concept of employment: Marginalizing workers. Ottawa: The Law Commission of Canada.Google Scholar
Gleeson, Shannon. 2013. Conflicting commitments: The politics of enforcing immigrant worker rights in San Jose and Houston. Ithaca: ILR Press.Google Scholar
Gormley, William T. 1998. Regulatory enforcement styles. Political Research Quarterly 51:363–83.Google Scholar
Howe, John, Hardy, Tess, and Cooney, Sean. 2013. Mandate, discretion, and professionalization in an employment standards enforcement agency: An antipodean experience. Law & Policy, 35 (1–2): 81–108.Google Scholar
Kelly, Marissa. 1994. Theories of justice and street-level discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4 (2): 119–40.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Levesque, Mario. 2011. Build it if you can: Discretion, building inspectors and Part 8 of Ontario’s 2006 Building Code. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 20 (1): 103–30.Google Scholar
Lewchuk, Wayne, Clarke, Marlea, and Wolff, Alice de. 2011. Working without commitments: The health effects of precarious employment. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
May, Peter J., and Wood, Robert S.. 2003. At the regulatory front lines: Inspectors’ enforcement styles and regulatory compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (2): 117–39.Google Scholar
Monsebraaten, Laurie. 2013. Ontario minimum wage workers on the rise, study finds. Toronto Star, 8 October: GTA1.Google Scholar
Ontario. Ministry of Labour (MOL). 2009. Employment standards act policy and interpretation manual. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Ontario. Ministry of Labour (MOL). 2010. New Legislation Modernizes Ontario’s Employment Standards. MOL Newsroom. Toronto: Province of Ontario. November 29. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/news/bulletin_ofba.phpGoogle Scholar
Ontario. Ministry of Labour (MOL). 2013. Introduction to the administration manual for employment standards. Toronto: Province of Ontario.Google Scholar
Piore, Michael J., and Schrank, Andrew. 2008. Toward managed flexibility: The revival of labour inspection in the Latin world. International Labour Review 147 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portillo, Shannon, and Rudes, Danielle. 2014. Construction of justice at the street level. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10:321–34.Google Scholar
Pottie, Laura, and Sossin, Lorne. 2005. Demystifying the boundaries of public law: Policy, discretion and social welfare. UBC Law Review 38:147–88.Google Scholar
Snider, Laureen, and Bittle, Steven. 2011. The challenges of regulating powerful economic actors. In European Developments in Corporate Criminal Liability, ed. Gobert, James and Pascal, Ana-Maria, 53–69. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomas, Mark. 2009. Regulating flexibility: The political economy of employment standards. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Tombs, Steve, and Whyte, David. 2013. Transcending the deregulation debate? Regulation, risk, and the enforcement of health and safety law in the UK. Regulation & Governance 7 (1): 61–79.Google Scholar
Vinzant, J., and Crothers, L. 1996. Street level leadership: Rethinking the role of public servants in contemporary governance. American Review of Public Administration, 26:457–76.Google Scholar
Vosko, Leah F. 2006. Precarious employment: Towards an improved understanding of labour market insecurity. In Precarious employment: Understanding labour market insecurity in Canada, ed. Vosko, Leah F., 3–39. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Vosko, Leah F. 2007. Precarious part-time work in Australia and in transnational labour regulation: The gendered limits of SER-centrism. Labour & Industry: A Journal of The Social and Economic Relations of Work 17/3:45–70.Google Scholar
Vosko, Leah F. 2010. Managing the Margins: Gender, Citizenship, and the International Regulation of Precarious Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vosko, Leah F., Tucker, Eric, Thomas, Mark P., and Gellatly, Mary. 2012. New approaches to enforcement and compliance with labour regulatory standards: The case of Ontario, Canada. Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario.Google Scholar
Vosko, Leah F., Grundy, John, and Thomas, Mark P.. 2014. Challenging new governance: Evaluating new approaches to employment standards enforcement in common law jurisdictions. Economic and Industrial Democracy September 8, doi:10.1177/0143831X14546237.Google Scholar
Weil, David. 2010. Improving workplace conditions through strategic enforcement: A report to the wage and hour division. Boston: US Department of Labor.Google Scholar