Case information

Labour relations — Anti-strikebreaking provisions — Targeted strike declared to be illegal — Bargaining unit — Employer’s establishment — Whether, in light of hierarchy of sources, Administrative Labour Tribunal and courts below should have interpreted Labour Code consistently with rights and values of charters even though constitutionality of s. 109.1 of Labour Code not being challenged — Whether Administrative Labour Tribunal and courts below erred in limiting their analysis to narrow, restrictive interpretation of s. 109.1 of Labour Code without referring to context of Labour Code in determining whether criterion from Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, was met — Section 109.1, Labour Code, R.S.Q., c. C 27.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, the Syndicat de professionnelles et professionnels du Gouvernement du Québec, which was certified following a special process provided for in the Public Service Act, represents some 17,000 professional employees in various departments and agencies. These employees are included in a single bargaining unit for the purpose of negotiating with a single negotiator, the Conseil du trésor, which acts on behalf of the Quebec government. The collective agreement of the employees in question expired on March 31, 2015. On May 24, 2016, the applicant gave notice of a targeted strike, for an indeterminate period that was to begin on June 3, 2016, to the Ministère des Relations internationales et de la Francophonie. The strike notice concerned 151 professional employees. On May 30, 2016, the Quebec government applied to the Administrative Labour Tribunal for an order declaring the strike to be illegal on the basis that it did not include all the employees of the bargaining unit and, moreover, that it was inconsistent with the negotiated essential services agreement. On June 2, 2016, the Administrative Labour Tribunal rendered a decision in which it declared the strike to be illegal. The applicant applied to the Superior Court for judicial review of that decision. The Superior Court dismissed the application, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.