Competition Act amendments are about to come into force – What businesses need to know following the release of the official Enforcement Guidelines

June 9, 2023

On June 23, 2023, major amendments to section 45 of the Competition Act¹ (the “Act”) are set to come into force. Adopted in 2022 by the Parliament of Canada, these amendments are primarily designed to harmonize Canadian non-competition law with legislation in various other countries, particularly the U.S., which restricts certain business practices regarded as harmful to workers. The amendments to the Act will have an impact on employers across Canada, whether or not they operate in an area of federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Beginning on June 23, 2023, the Act will prohibit “unaffiliated” employers from entering into agreements aimed at: i) fixing wages or employment conditions; or ii) restricting the job mobility of employees by means of reciprocal non-solicitation and no-poaching agreements. In this regard, it should be noted that agreements between affiliated companies (e.g., controlled by the same parent company) do not violate the Act.

This bulletin seeks to provide a summary of various amendments of interest to employers in light of the official version of the related enforcement guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which were published by the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) on May 30, 2023.² Although the Guidelines do not have the force of law, they set out the Bureau’s approach when interpreting applicable prohibitions and defences.

AGREEMENTS FIXING WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS

Paragraph 45 (1.1) (a) of the Act prohibits agreements between unaffiliated employers aimed at fixing, maintaining, decreasing or controlling wages and other employment conditions.

In this regard, the Bureau’s Guidelines state that “terms and conditions of employment” typically refer to any condition that could affect a person’s decision to enter into, or remain in, an employment contract. This may include “job descriptions, allowances such as per diem and mileage reimbursements, non-monetary compensation, working hours, location and non-compete clauses, or other directives that may restrict an individual’s job opportunities”.

Citing an example of a problematic case in light of the Act’s new provisions, the Bureau describes a situation in which two unaffiliated employers hold a lunch meeting during which they agree to limit the annual bonuses of their employees to 5% of their gross salary. This type of agreement would, in all likelihood, be prohibited under the Act.

NON-POACHING AND NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENTS

Paragraph (1.1) (b) of the Act also prohibits agreements between unaffiliated employers that could limit the prospects of their employees being hired by the other employer.

This new provision concerns reciprocal non-solicitation and non-poaching agreements between employers. These agreements are found fairly frequently in commercial contracts covering mergers/acquisitions, joint ventures, partnerships, sales, procurement/supplies of goods and services, franchises, recruitment and personnel placement, etc.

However, as discussed below, it should be noted that these types of agreement would only violate the Act if the parties had reciprocal non-poaching obligations in place. In other words, if the obligation is only “one-way”, i.e., only one of the parties is subject to the obligation not to solicit or poach the employees of the other employer, there is no infraction.

POTENTIAL EXEMPTIONS AND DEFENCES

The main defence against proceedings initiated under subsection 45 (1.1) is based on the ancillary restraints defence (“ARD”). To use it, employers must demonstrate that:

The restraint is ancillary to a broader or separate agreement between the parties;
The restraint is directly related to and reasonably necessary for achieving the objective of the broader or separate agreement; and
The broader or separate agreement does not otherwise violate subsection 45 (1.1) of the Act (when considered without the restraint).

For example, it is reasonable to expect that an agency specializing in temporarily placing personnel with its clients would want to prevent its clients from hiring said personnel for the duration of their agreement. In that case, the ARD defence could be used.

The agreement, however, must be carefully drafted so the employer can demonstrate that it was reasonably necessary for achieving the desired objective. In this regard, the Bureau notes that the duration, objective and geographical scope of the restraint, among other factors, will be examined when determining whether the agreement is in fact “reasonably necessary”.

The Guidelines states that the Bureau “will generally not assess wage-fixing or no-poaching clauses that are ancillary to merger transactions, joint ventures or strategic alliances under the criminal provisions”. However, the Bureau “may start an investigation under subsection 45(1.1), where those clauses are clearly broader than necessary in terms of duration or affected employees, or where the business agreement or arrangement is a sham.”

Other exemptions and defences may also apply, such as the defence based on regulated conduct³ or the exemption with respect to collective bargaining.⁴

APPLICABLE SANCTIONS

Violations of the new subsection 45 (1.1) could lead to criminal charges. A person found guilty of an offence could be subjected to a fine at the discretion of the court or may be imprisoned for up to 14 years, or both.

In addition, under section 36 of the Act,individuals (in all likelihood workers) who suffer losses or damages due to violations of provisions of the Act, including section 45 (thus including the new subsection 45 (1.1)), can claim from the person engaging in such misconduct (in this case, the employer) a sum corresponding to the amount of the losses or damages suffered. Therefore, violations of these provisions could lead to civil suits and possibly, in certain cases, to a class action suit.

SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND NEXT STEPS

The Guidelines specify that the prohibitions set in out subsection 45(1.1) apply not only to agreements entered into on or after June 23, 2023, but also to conduct that reaffirms or implements agreements that were entered into before that date. In this respect, at least two of the parties to these prior agreements must reaffirm or implement the restraint. This may include, for example, the renewal by two or more parties of an agreement containing a prohibited undertaking.

The Bureau also notes that it will be focusing on the intent of the parties on or after June 23, 2023. In that context, companies are advised to review their contract templates and to update their pre-existing agreements in the normal course of business.

We therefore recommend that all companies, whether operating in an area of provincial or federal jurisdiction, examine the contracts currently in effect to which they are party and identify any clauses that might constitute violations under the new provisions of the Act. Various strategies or corrective measures aimed at limiting business risks could then be evaluated and implemented depending on the necessity and reasonableness of the undertakings in question are (e.g., renegotiating an undertaking or adopting a directive confirming that the employer will not apply an undertaking on or after June 23, 2023, etc.).

Please feel free to contact the members of our teams for further details or for ad

R.S.C. 1985 c. C-34, as amended by Bill C-19, Budget Implementation Act 2022, No. 1, S.C. 2022, c. 10.
Competition Bureau. Enforcement guidelines on wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements on line, May 30, 2023.
Subsection 45(7) of the Act.
Section 4 of the Act.

Back to the publications list

Written by

Catherine Méthot
Senior Associate
Jessica Parent
Senior Associate

Collaborator

Béatrice Bull
Lawyer

Stay tuned for the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe to publications

Publications that might interest you

December 11, 2024

Hiring Process: Can Knowledge of a Language Other Than French Be Required by an Employer?

In a decision rendered on September 16, 2024,1 the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the “ALT”) found that a company (the “employer”) had violated the Charter of the French language2 (the “CFL”) by requiring knowledge of languages other than French as part of a hiring process. This is one of the first decisions ruling on the new complaint mechanisms introduced by Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec3 (“Bill 96”), aimed at amending the CFL. The Legislative Changes Made in 2022 On May 24, 2022, the Quebec government passed Bill 96, which received royal assent on June 1, 2022. This law made significant amendments to the CFL and other laws. Even before the amendments introduced by Bill 96 were adopted, the CFL prohibited employers from requiring that a person have knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than French to keep or obtain a position, unless the nature of the duties required such knowledge. Bill 96 has clarified the scope of employer obligations in this respect. In particular, employers must have taken all reasonable means to avoid imposing such a requirement,4 and, if they do impose it, they must indicate the reasons justifying this requirement in their job postings.5 Bill 96 also made it possible for job applicants and employees to challenge employers’ requirements respecting knowledge of a language other than French. The CFL now stipulates that if an employer does not meet the “necessity” conditions described below, requiring knowledge of a language other than French will be deemed a prohibited practice. The notion of a complaint for “prohibited practice” already exists in the Act respecting labour standards,6 notably in section 122. It enables employees to file a complaint if they believe they have been subjected to sanctions, discriminatory measures or reprisals for exercising a right provided under this law. The amendments introduced by Bill 96 have thus broadened the concept of prohibited practice to also include the exercise of certain language rights. The CFL was further amended to allow employees to directly file a complaint with the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (the “CNESST”)7 if they believe that an illegal requirement to know a language other than French is being imposed on them. These are the issues addressed by the ALT in this decision. The facts On March 3, 2023, the complainant, Byung Chan Kim, filed a complaint for prohibited practice under the CFL. He believed that he was not granted a position posted by the defendant, the employer, because it required knowledge of a language other than French as part of a hiring process. The complainant came across a job posting in the defendant’s procurement and logistics department, which it had published in January 2023. The posting appeared exclusively in Korean in an online newspaper aimed at the Korean community. The complainant submitted his application in February along with his resume, which was written in French only. A representative of the defendant requested the complainant to provide an English version of the document, which the complainant provided. The complainant then participated in an interview, during which the defendant’s representative asked the complainant to speak in English and Korean because he did not understand French. Since the complainant’s application was not selected, he filed a complaint for prohibited practice based on the provisions of the CFL. Presumption of Prohibited Practice Section 46 of the CFL prohibits an employer from requiring knowledge of a language other than French, except when such a requirement is necessary for the performance of duties. The provision reads, in part, as follows: 46. An employer is prohibited from requiring a person, in order for the person to be able to keep a position, or to obtain a position through, in particular, recruitment, hiring, transfer or promotion, to have knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language, unless the nature of the duties requires such knowledge; even in the latter case, the employer shall first take all reasonable means to avoid imposing such a requirement. [...] The second paragraph of section 45 of the CFL equates the requirement for knowledge of a language other than French in the context of employment to a prohibited practice: 45. The fact that an employer requires a person to have knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language to keep a position or to obtain a position, in particular through recruitment, hiring, transfer or promotion, is considered a prohibited practice under the first paragraph, unless the employer shows, in accordance with sections 46 and 46.1, that the performance of the duty requires such knowledge and that he first took all reasonable means to avoid imposing such a requirement. Based on these provisions, the ALT confirmed that a person in a hiring process, and therefore not bound to the employer by an employment agreement, bears the burden of demonstrating that the following conditions exist to benefit from a presumption of prohibited practice. They must:8 apply to a position in response to a job posting by the employer;9 demonstrate that the employer requires knowledge, or a specific level of knowledge, of a language other than French to access the position;10 and file a complaint within 45 days after the occurrence of the practice complained of.11 The ALT concluded that the complainant did indeed prove that all the conditions to apply the legal presumption of prohibited practice were met, such that it is presumed that the language requirements associated with the employer’s job posting violated the CFL. At that stage, it was a simple presumption. The presumption in favor of the complainant places the burden of proof on the employer, requiring it to demonstrate why the language requirement associated with the position was necessary, and that all reasonable means were taken to avoid imposing it. In order to prove the second criterion, the employer must show that it conducted an analysis of reasonable means before imposing the language requirement, and that it had indicated the reasons justifying this requirement in the job posting. Assessment of Language Requirements The defendant argued that the requirement for knowledge of English and Korean is necessary because the position includes tasks such as acquiring equipment on the international market, and because the defendant’s representative and employees communicate in Korean. In its analysis of these arguments, the ALT reaffirmed that the legislator has provided that any law must be interpreted in a manner that promotes the use and protection of the French language.12 Thus, the ALT emphasized that, to achieve the objectives of the law, a narrow interpretation must be made of the exceptions set out in the CFL, and that the criteria set out in sections 46 and 46.1 of the CFL are cumulative for each language requirement involving a language other than French. The ALT further noted that any decision to require knowledge of a language other than French to access a position must be based on a thorough and well-documented understanding of the actual constraints of the service in question.13 In this case, the ALT found that the defendant had failed to meet its burden of proof. First, the reasons justifying the English and Korean language requirements were not included in the job posting, an omission which in itself contravenes section 46 para. 2 of the CFL. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide evidence regarding the nature of the positions already held within the company and the tasks associated with them, nor did it demonstrate the English language proficiency that was already required of employees. Lastly, according to the evidence, all employees in the company’s supply and logistics department spoke Korean. However, the defendant failed to prove that it had ascertained, prior to publishing its job posting, that the knowledge of English and Korean already required of other employees was insufficient. It also failed to demonstrate that it had limited the number of positions involving tasks requiring knowledge of either of these languages to the greatest extent possible. As a result, the ALT concluded that the defendant had not taken all reasonable measures to avoid imposing these requirements and, therefore, did not succeed in rebutting the presumption of prohibited practice. Limited Defence The defendant claimed that it was not because the complainant had insufficient knowledge of languages other than French that he was not hired, but rather because he lacked the skills required for the position. However, the ALT concluded that the CFL does not allow a defendant to raise an additional defence, such as having another just and sufficient cause that does not relate to the requirement for knowledge of a language other than French, to be used to avoid the application of the presumption. Since the defendant failed to prove that the performance of the task required knowledge of a language other than French, and because it failed to previously take all reasonable measures to avoid imposing such a requirement, the simple presumption became an absolute presumption, and the defendant cannot counter it with any other defence. Consequently, when a hiring process includes language requirements other than French and does not comply with the conditions of section 46.1 of the CFL, the process becomes irreparably tainted by an unlawful motive. The ALT thus confirmed that the only way to rebut the presumption of section 45, paragraph 2, and section 46 of the CFL, is to demonstrate that the performance of the duties requires knowledge of a language other than French, and that the employer has preemptively taken all reasonable means to avoid imposing such a requirement. The ALT therefore upheld the complainant’s complaint and reserved its powers to determine the appropriate remedies. Conclusion This decision marked a significant turning point in the application of the CFL. The ALT emphasized the importance of complying with the new provisions introduced by Bill 96, which aims to strengthen the language rights of Quebec workers. This decision serves as a reminder to employers of the obligation to clearly justify any language requirement and to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable measures to avoid imposing conditions contrary to the CFL. Furthermore, this decision unequivocally rules out the possibility of defending against such a complaint with a defence based on the existence of another just and sufficient cause to justify the employer’s decision. It is crucial for businesses in Quebec to ensure compliance with these rules to prevent potential litigation, while respecting the fundamental right of workers to carry on their activities in French. Moreover, in light of this decision enforcing the prohibition on imposing language requirements under the amended CFL, it will also be pertinent to monitor how the ALT might eventually interpret the notion of “unreasonable reorganization” of a business. Indeed, the CFL stipulates that the first paragraph of section 46.1 must not be interpreted in a way that imposes on an employer an unreasonable reorganization of its business. Such an interpretation could provide employers with a way to avoid being bound by the conditions provided by the CFL. It will be important to closely follow any subsequent developments. Kim c. Ultium Cam, 2024 QCTAT 3295. CQLR, c. C-11. SQ 2022, c. 14. S. 46 para. 1 of the CFL. S. 46 para. 2 of the CFL. CQLR, c. N-1.1. S. 47 of the CFL. S. 47.2 para. 2 of the CFL, which refers to the Labour Code, CQLR, c. C-27, s. 17 with the necessary modifications. S. 46 of the CFL. S. 46 of the CFL. S. 47 of the CFL. Interpretation Act, CQLR, c. I-16, s. 40.3. Gatineau (Ville de) c. Syndicat des cols blancs de Gatineau inc., 2016 QCCA 1596.

Read more
November 27, 2024

Announcement of U.S. tariffs: repercussions and trade strategies for Quebec businesses?

Nearly four years after the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (the “CUSMA” or the “Agreement”) came into force, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced on November 25, 2024, that he would impose 25% tariffs on all products entering the U.S. from Canada and Mexico, starting on the first day of his presidency, that is, January 20, 2025. Mr. Trump added that the tariffs would remain in effect until Canada and Mexico strengthened their border policies, which he blames for the increase in illegal immigration and the trafficking of devastating drugs in the United States. As a reminder, under the current provisions of the CUSMA, most products made in Quebec and Canada can be sold on U.S. markets without tariffs applying. And so, although we can only speculate and although Mr. Trump did not give details on this subject in his announcement, his future administration could indeed invoke a number of legislative authorities to implement such a measure. In particular, it could invoke the CUSMA’s essential security exception, which allows a party to the Agreement to apply any measure deemed necessary to protect its essential security interests, the national security exception in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which President Trump’s first administration used in 2018 to introduce tariffs on U.S. imports of certain steel and aluminum products, or the provisions of the National Emergencies Act. Needless to say, the announcement sent shockwaves through the political and business communities in Canada and Quebec what with the close commercial ties that the U.S. has with Canada, including with Quebec. In the first quarter of 2024 alone, Quebec’s merchandise exports to the U.S. reached CAN$21.2 billion, which accounts for nearly 74.6% of the province’s international merchandise exports and makes the U.S. Quebec’s main trading partner on the world stage. The imposition of 25% tariffs would therefore significantly affect Quebec businesses. It would make them less competitive on the U.S. market, on which they rely heavily to export their products. The measure could be particularly detrimental to the Canadian forestry industry, which is already severely affected by tariffs of nearly 15% on lumber. The U.S. economy would also be considerably affected by such protectionist tariffs. While in the short term, tariffs could benefit certain domestic manufacturers and producers, in the longer term, they are likely to harm the U.S. economy as a whole. Many U.S. manufacturers would face higher costs of inputs, and established supply chains would be disrupted, in particular in the automotive and steel industries. To continue to make profits, many U.S. companies could be forced to pass on the additional costs to their end consumers by raising the prices of their products, which would undoubtedly result in another wave of inflation. Worth mentioning also are the retaliatory measures that the Canadian government may want to implement in response to such tariffs, which could affect certain parts of the U.S. economy. Although the CUSMA provides for dispute resolution mechanisms, they are unlikely to lessen the impact of the measures that the Trump administration is considering in the short term, as a final decision under these mechanisms could take a long time to be issued. The new U.S. administration could use the announcement made on November 25 as leverage in future CUSMA renewal negotiations, the preparatory discussions for which are slated to begin next year, or in negotiations for a separate trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada that would exclude Mexico. Canadian businesses would do well to encourage their various trade associations to take steps to lobby both American decision-makers and their corporate customers in the U.S. and remind them of the harmful effects that the announced tariffs may have on American businesses. While we wait for a more detailed announcement with information concerning specific tariff exemptions in particular, we suggest that businesses choose their future trading partners with great care. In an increasingly protectionist global economic context, a strategy involving the diversification of trading partners is the best way for businesses to offset the risks associated with a particular country’s tariff policies. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement signed by Canada and the European Union in 2017, which our firm helped to negotiate, may prove to be an interesting solution in this respect. Our team of commercial law and tax professionals is available to help you find solutions to the issues arising from this announcement. With our expertise, we can assist you in your commercial negotiations and help you develop strategies to mitigate the impact that the announced tariff increase may have on your business.

Read more
October 29, 2024

Employers’ Right to Require Medical Certificates: New Restrictions as of January 1, 2025

Quebec is currently facing a major shortage of physicians. To remedy the situation, several ministers in the CAQ government announced in early 2024 that significant changes would be implemented to reduce physicians’ administrative burden. In this context, on October 9, 2024, the National Assembly assented to Bill 68, An Act mainly to reduce the administrative burden of physicians.1 The provisions of the Act The new Act comprises 11 sections, many of which introduce amendments to the Act respecting labour standards2 (ALS) by restricting the right of employers to require documents attesting to the reasons for certain absences. Under the current legislation, an employer may be entitled to require a document from an employee who misses work owing to sickness in order to assess the reasons for the absence, its duration, or the employee’s ability to return to work. This is because, under the terms of a contract of employment,3every employer is entitled to expect their employee to fully perform the work agreed upon. Depending on the circumstances, the supporting document provided must in some instances indicate a specific medical diagnosis, an estimated duration of absence and other details relevant to handling the employee’s absence. In keeping with these principles, section 79.2 of the ALS provided that an employer informed of an absence owing to sickness, an organ or tissue donation, an accident, domestic violence, sexual violence or a criminal offence may, “[i]f it is warranted by the duration of the absence or its repetitive nature, for instance, [...] request that the employee furnish a document attesting to those reasons.” According to arbitral jurisprudence4 and that of the Administrative Labour Tribunal5, unwarranted refusal to provide such a document may constitute valid grounds for imposing an administrative or disciplinary measure, depending on the circumstances. That said, the new Act as adopted changes this balance. Indeed, a paragraph has been added to section 79.2 of the ALS specifying that “[...] no employer may request the document referred to in the first paragraph for the first three periods of absence not exceeding three consecutive days taken over a period of 12 months.” It will therefore be prohibited to require a supporting document, including a medical certificate, for the first three short-term absences (less than four days) occurring over the 12 preceding months. According to the comments of the Minister of Labour, such calculation of absences is to begin with the first absence during the year rather than as of January 1st of each year.6 The Act does not provide for an exception in cases where absences are excessive or otherwise questionable. Under which conditions will employers be entitled to require a medical certificate? Under the Act, employers retain the right to require a medical certificate where the absence is likely to last four consecutive days or more. What is more, the provision does not deny employers the right to investigate situations that appear questionable. The aforementioned prohibition will also apply to employers whose employees are governed by the Act respecting labour relations, vocational training and workforce management in the construction industry.7 Furthermore, the Act includes an amendment to the provisions relating to family or parental leave and absences. The third paragraph of section 79.7 of the ALS is amended so as to prevent employers from requiring a medical certificate to justify such absences. However, we believe this amendment in no way affects their right to require any other type of documentation, particularly as regards obligations relating to daycare services or educational institutions. Where an offence is committed, the penal provisions already included in sections 139 to 147 of the ALS apply. As these amendments are of public order and take precedence over any contract, policy or collective agreement, any measure imposed on an employee that would contravene any of these new obligations may be deemed invalid or result in a prohibited practice complaint. How will the Act affect insurers and employee benefit plan administrators? On another note, the Act mainly to reduce the administrative burden of physicians also introduces a new prohibition applicable to insurers and employee benefit plan administrators. They will no longer be entitled to require that a medical service, such as a consultation, be received in order to reimburse the cost of services or a technical aid, nor will they be entitled to require that a medical service be received at a predetermined frequency different from that considered appropriate by the attending physician for the purpose of maintaining the payment of disability benefits. Coming into force The amendments to the ALS will come into force as of January 1, 2025. The amendments concerning insurers and employee benefit plan administrators will apply subsequently at a date or dates to be set by the Government. S.Q., 2024, c. 29. CQLR, c. N-1.1. Civil Code of Québec, CQLR, c. CCQ-1991, art. 2085. See in particular the case law cited in Linda Bernier, Guy Blanchet and Éric Séguin, Les mesures disciplinaires et non disciplinaires dans les rapports collectifs du travail, 2nd ed. Cowansville, Éditions Yvon Blais, loose-leaf, updated to May 30, 2024, paras. 1.055 et seq. See in particular : Marchessault et CPE Les Petits Adultes, 2019 QCTAT 1632, paras. 37–38; Labourdette et Protecteur du citoyen, 2019 QCTAT 4831, para. 52. COMMITTEE ON LABOUR AND THE ECONOMY, Clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 68, An Act mainly to reduce the administrative burden of physicians, October 1, 2024. CQLR, c. R-20.

Read more
August 1, 2024

Major change to the Canada Labour Code with new anti-replacement-worker provisions

Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, was passed on June 20, 2024, introducing anti-replacement-worker provisions to the Canada Labour Code. While anti-replacement-worker legislation has existed in Quebec since 1977, nothing of the sort existed for federal jurisdiction employers. Before Bill C-58, federal legislation only stipulated that an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer could not use replacement workers “for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives.” Unions faced a heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that replacement workers were being used for this purpose. As a result, union activists have been pushing for decades for more protection during labour disputes. New anti-replacement-worker provisions Bill C-58 adds a new subsection to section 94 of the Canada Labour Code on unfair practices, which limits and regulates the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. The new provisions no longer require unions to demonstrate the employer’s intention to undermine the union’s representational capacity and they prevent federal jurisdiction employers from using the services of any of the following persons to perform the duties of an employee who is in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out: Any employee hired after the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given. Any person who performs management functions or who is employed in a confidential capacity in matters related to industrial relations, if the person was hired after the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given. Any contractor, other than a dependent contractor, or any employee of another employer whose services were not being used on the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given. If, before the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given, an employer was using the services of a contractor or an employee of another employer and those services were the same as or substantially similar to the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit, they may continue to use those services during a labour dispute, so long as they do so in the same manner, to the same extent and in the same circumstances as they did before the notice was given. Any employee whose normal workplace is a workplace other than that at which the strike or lockout is taking place or who was transferred to the workplace at which the strike or lockout is taking place after the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given. Any volunteer, student or member of the public. Any employee who is in a bargaining unit on strike or locked out. However, the new provisions allow employers to use the services of such persons during a strike or lockout as long as the services are used solely to deal with a situation that presents or could reasonably be expected to present one of the following imminent or serious threats: A threat to the life, health or safety of any person. A threat of destruction of, or serious damage to, the employer’s property or premises. A threat of serious environmental damage affecting the employer’s property or premises. The use of the services must be necessary in order to deal with the situation because the employer is unable to use the services of the employees on strike or locked out. As in Quebec’s Labour Code, an employer may only rely on the services of a person referred to above for conservation purposes, and not for the purpose of continuing the supply of services or production of goods by the employer. Finally, the bill specifies that the employer must first offer these conservation duties to the employees who are on strike or locked out. The bill also includes provisions applicable to employers who contravene the anti-replacement-worker provisions. These offences can result in fines of up to $100,000 per day. The government may also ensure compliance with the new provisions by adopting regulations to establish an administrative framework with financial penalties. New provisions regarding the maintenance of activities during a strike or lockout In order to prevent imminent and serious threats to public health and safety, Bill C-58 provides that the union and employer must reach an agreement on the activities to be maintained in the event of a labour dispute. If no activities need to be maintained, the parties must still enter into an agreement to this effect. An employer and a union must enter into this agreement no later than 15 days after the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given to the Minister of Labour and the Canada Industrial Relations Board. If the parties do not reach an agreement, the matter will be brought before the Board at the request of one of the parties. The 72-hour strike or lockout notices referred to in section 87.2 of the Canada Labour Code may be given only once this agreement has been reached and a copy has been filed with the Minister and the Board, or if no agreement has been reached, if the Board has determined an application made by one of the parties. Coming into force Bill C-58 will come into force on June 20, 2025. Until then, the new anti-replacement-worker provisions will undoubtedly cause federal jurisdiction employers to seriously consider their bargaining power and level of preparedness for possible labour disputes. Our team is here to help you through this process.

Read more