Skip to content

Client Update: Special Project Orders the next milestone for Muskrat Falls progress

On June 17, 2013, pursuant to the recently amended Section 70 of the Labour Relations Act for Newfoundland and Labrador (“NL”), the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador issued three Special Project Orders (“SPOs”) in respect of the Muskrat Falls phase of the Lower Churchill Hydro Electric Generation Project (“Muskrat Falls Project”).

For those seeking to do work on the Muskrat Falls Project, familiarization with the SPOs and the referenced agreements is essential.

The SPOs have the effect of displacing the collective agreements negotiated between the Construction Labour Relations Association (the accredited employer in the Commercial Industrial Division of the NL construction industry) and the individual trade unions who represent the tradespersons in that division. They also operate to create a virtually exclusive unionized workplace.

The SPOs and the prescribed Collective Agreements designate three separate work scopes for the Muskrat Falls Project, each with its own collective agreement and an umbrella dispute resolution agreement.

The three work scopes of the Muskrat Falls Project are:

  • Lower Churchill reservoir clearing
  • Lower Churchill hydro generation
  • Lower Churchill transmission

The umbrella agreement for dispute resolution, the Overlap Dispute Resolution Agreement, is designed to resolve disputes where there are overlaps in the work of one or more contractors on two or more of the three separate work scopes of the Muskrat Falls Project.

Care must be taken not to assume that the collective agreements for each work scope of the Muskrat Falls Project follow the pattern of previous SPOs or that all the construction trades are involved with a special project collective agreement respecting a particular scope of work; there are three distinct collective agreements in respect of the Muskrat Falls Project as a whole.

The Special Project collective agreements allow a union or non-union contractor to become involved on the site but, whether union or non-union, a contractor is obligated to acquire its labour in accordance with the applicable Special Project Agreement hiring protocols. The hiring protocols are consistent with the Lower Churchill Construction Projects Benefits Strategy and Lower Churchill Innu Impacts and Benefits Agreement. These agreements ensure priority of hiring for qualified Labrador Innu, qualified Labrador residents and qualified residents of the Island portion of the Province. Unionized contractors may have some flexibility respecting use of their regular unionized employees on the Muskrat Falls Project, but non-union contractors have little to no flexibility in this regard.

The three collective agreements which have been prescribed for the three separate work scopes of the Muskrat Falls Project are:

  • Collective Agreement between Muskrat Falls Employers’ Association and the Resource Development Trades Council of Newfoundland and Labrador* (Generating Facility Agreement).
    –  The Trades Council represents all construction trades operating
    in the Province.
  • Collective Agreement between Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers’ Association Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1620 (Transmission Agreement).
  • Collective Agreement between Lower Churchill Reservoir Clearing Employers’ Association Inc. and Labourers’ International Union of North America and the Construction and General Labourers’ Union, Rock and Tunnel Workers, Local 1208 (Reservoir Clearing Agreement).

It is recommended that clients review, paying particular attention to, the collective agreement related to the scope of the work targeted and, where there exists overlap, the collective agreement relevant to either or both of the work scopes prescribed by the other SPOs. It is also recommended that the Overlap Dispute Resolution Agreement be reviewed in order to fully understand the financial and labour cost implications of work which may involve two or more of the work scopes within the Muskrat Falls Project.

As with previous special projects, a non-union contractor which follows the hiring provisions of the applicable Special Project Agreement(s) does not automatically become a unionized contractor at the conclusion of work on the Special Project. In the Muskrat Falls Project wind-down process each contractor who is non-union prior to commencing work on the Special Project should ensure care is taken during its layoff and wind-down processes. Similarly, a contractor bound by one or more of the Provincial Commercial Industrial Division collective agreements when commencing work on the Special Project may avoid the applicability of additional Provincial agreements by exercising care during its layoff and wind-down process as the work is completed.

The issuance of the SPOs marks another significant milestone in the recently sanctioned $7.7 billion dollar Muskrat Falls Project.

We would be pleased to assist with any legal and strategic planning issues arising from proposed or actual involvement in the Muskrat Falls Project.

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