Skip to content

Client Update: First Contract Arbitration

As many of you will now know, the Nova Scotia Government introduced legislation on Friday, December 6, 2013, amending provisions of the Nova Scotia Trade Union Act dealing with First Contract Arbitration. This client update sets out the changes and the impact that they will have on Nova Scotia employers.

 

HOW DOES THIS CHANGE THE LAW IN NOVA SCOTIA

 

If passed, Bill 19, will still allow the Labour Board to impose a first agreement but only after a determination that one of the bargaining parties is not using best efforts to reach a collective agreement. The automatic access to first contract arbitration that exists under the current legislation would be removed by the proposed amendments except in circumstances where the parties agree on an arbitrator. The amendments will also allow the parties more time to negotiate before access to the first contract arbitration process can be triggered.

Additional negotiation time is provided through the removal of provisions setting time limits on how soon a conciliation officer may notify the Board that the parties have reached an impasse and in the Board’s ability to return the parties to conciliation after an application is made. With the proposed amendments, the conciliator must now determine that the parties have reached an impasse before the matter can be placed before the Labour Board. The Board will then decide whether there has been conduct by one of the parties that has led to unsuccessful bargaining and only if such improper conduct is found will there be first contract arbitration. The Labour Board will essentially only be involved in situations where it determines that one of the bargaining parties is impeding the process.

In order to move to first contract arbitration (without agreement) under the current amendments, one of the parties will be required to show that:

• The other has refused to recognize its bargaining authority.
• The other has adopted an unreasonable position.
• The other has failed to make reasonable or timely efforts to reach a contract.
• Another bargaining element that the Labour Board deems relevant.

If the Board finds that the parties are using best efforts to bargain, it has the authority to direct that they return to conciliation or appoint an arbitrator. If the parties do not wish to have an arbitrator appointed, they can request that the Board settle the matter. Such requests must be made within seven days of the direction of the Board. While this avoids the expense of going to arbitration (which is borne equally by the parties), it still leaves employers in the position of having an outside party determine the terms and conditions of employment. If one of the parties requests the Board determine the matter, the hearing must commence within twenty-one days of the request. The Board must release a decision within 45 days of commencement of the hearing.

If the Board orders that the parties return to conciliation, they will have an additional 30 days within which to reach an agreement. If they are not able to reach agreement within this 30 day period, the Board will direct settlement by arbitration and an arbitrator will be appointed.

There can be no strike or lockout after a party applies to the Board or the Board has provided direction to return to conciliation.

There is currently no indication in the proposed legislation as to when the proposed amendments would take effect or from what date they would apply. Presumably, therefore, the legislation would take effect on the date of Royal Assent (formal approval by the Lieutenant Governor) and would apply to any case then before the Board or any new case. It is understood there are no outstanding cases.

 

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU?

 

While the proposed amendments do not remove first contract arbitration, they are positive for the business community and will bring Nova Scotia’s legislation in line with other Canadian jurisdictions.

 

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

 

Bill 19 has passed First Reading, and is scheduled for Second Reading on December 9. After the Bill receives Second Reading, there will be debate on the proposed amendments. We anticipate that the Government will seek input from interested parties and that some employers will wish to make submissions as the Bill moves through the legislative process. We will continue monitoring the process of this Bill and keep you updated of the progress of this legislation.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions, or for a detailed list and background please view our Labour & Employment Group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top