A union’s optional approach to following the law
Chad Sullivan and Meaghan MacMaster, CIPP/C, CPHR
The Air Canada flight attendants’ strike, the subsequent back-to-work order, and union’s refusal to comply, have all made headlines. Now that the dust is starting to settle, the real question is: what does this moment reveal about the future of labour relations in Canada?
Legislative tools for ending strikes: Section 107 and back-to-work legislation
The federal government has mechanisms to compel workers to return to work during labour disputes. These include formal back-to-work legislation and Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”).
Back-to-work legislation must be introduced in the House of Commons, requiring democratic debate and parliamentary approval before it can be enacted. In contrast, Section 107 allows the Minister of Labour to act unilaterally when deemed expedient to maintain industrial peace. The minister may refer questions to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the “CIRB”) or direct the CIRB to take actions the minister considers necessary to resolve disputes.
This provision has existed since 1984, but remained largely unused until 2011, when then Minister of Labour Lisa Raitt invoked it during a dispute involving Air Canada flight attendants who had twice rejected proposed collective agreements.
Labour tensions in the skies: The Air Canada conflict
The recent strike by over 10,000 Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge flight attendants, represented by CUPE, has become a defining moment in Canadian labour relations. The dispute stemmed from the expiration of a decade-long collective agreement and focused on unpaid work, particularly the time flight attendants spend on the ground before takeoff and after landing. Despite formal conciliation efforts beginning in May, negotiations stalled, and flight attendants voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action. CUPE issued a strike notice, followed by a lockout notice from Air Canada. The strike officially began on August 16th.
What followed was a dramatic standoff between the union, the airline, and the federal government. Minister of Jobs and Families, Patty Hajdu, used her powers under section 107 and directed the CIRB to issue a back-to-work order and to refer the dispute to binding arbitration. CUPE defied the back-to-work order, and the flight attendants remained on the picket line.
Just days later CUPE announced a tentative agreement had been reached. While few details were given on the agreement, CUPE announced the agreement guaranteed ground pay for its members. The parties are now proceeding to arbitration to finalize the wage portion of the four-year tentative agreement. During the arbitration process and throughout the term of the new agreement, neither party is permitted to initiate any labour disruption
Air Canada recently announced that the financial impact of the labour disruption is estimated at $375 million, and that it has received 60,000 claims from customers affected by the strike.[1] While flights are gradually resuming, the strike’s legacy will likely shape future labour negotiations.
The ripple effects of CUPE’s strike action on labour relations
Labour unions have increasingly criticized the use of Section 107, arguing that it bypasses democratic processes and undermines workers’ constitutional right to strike. Its recent use in the 2025 Air Canada strike has reignited debate over the appropriate limits of ministerial authority in labour relations, and whether such interventions erode the integrity of collective bargaining.
However, criticism and rejecting the authority of the CIRB are two very different things.
Labour relations depend on a foundation of stability, predictability, and respect for Canada’s legal framework. While individuals may disagree with certain legal provisions, there is a democratic process available to advocate for legislative change. However, choosing not to follow the law risks undermining the integrity of our labour relations system and the protections it affords to all parties.
The Code is designed to ensure orderly negotiations, protect workers’ rights, and promote long-term industrial peace. When a union openly defies a directive from the CIRB, it raises serious concerns about the integrity of that system. If such defiance becomes precedent, what will prevent a union from disregarding future decisions simply because they disagree with the outcome? What will keep employers bargaining in good faith? This kind of action risks throwing the entire labour relations framework into chaos, undermining the very rules that are meant to protect both workers and employers.
This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the authors, or a member of our Labour & Employment Group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
[1] Air Canada Provides Third Quarter 2025 Estimated Results and Updated Full Year 2025 Guidance, < https://www.aircanada.com/media/air-canada-provides-third-quarter-2025-estimated-results-and-updated-full-year-2025-guidance/>, September 24, 2025.