Skip to content

Client Update: Universal interest arbitration proposed for New Brunswick

On March 29, 2016, the Province of New Brunswick tabled proposed changes to the Industrial Relations Act and the Public Services Labour Relations Act. If passed, these changes would dramatically alter well-established principles of private sector collective bargaining.

Current Legislation

Presently, all disputes arising during the term of a collective agreement must be resolved without stoppage of work. However, upon its expiry, if the parties are unable to agree to terms of a new collective agreement, strikes or lockouts are permitted: unions or employers may invoke the economic pressure of a work stoppage as a collective bargaining tactic.

Currently, the only exception is with respect to the police and fire sectors. As “essential services”, strikes or lockouts are prohibited in that sector. According, if employers and unions are unable to reach a collective agreement in the police or fire sector, either party may submit the dispute to binding interest arbitration and an arbitration board will set the terms of the new collective agreement.

Key Changes Proposed

Dramatic expansion of interest arbitration: The changes proposed would extend binding interest arbitration to all sectors, not simply police and fire. In other words, if unions and employers cannot agree to the terms of a new collective agreement, either party would be permitted to unilaterally refer the matter to binding interest arbitration, in which case a work stoppage would be prohibited. The terms of the new collective agreement would therefore be imposed by an arbitration board without any strike or lockout.

Change to “final offer” interest arbitration: Presently, interest arbitration boards have wide latitude to select an award deemed appropriate. The proposed amendments would impose a “final offer” framework for monetary matters. This means that, with respect to wages, the arbitration board would be required to choose either the last offer made by the employer or that made by the union; it cannot “split the difference” and make a compromise award. The arbitration board would retain its wide latitude with respect to non-monetary matters.

Change to criteria considered by interest arbitrators: The proposed amendments list five (5) specific factors interest arbitration boards must consider in making their award: wages and benefits in private, public, non-unionized and unionized employment; employment levels and layoffs; the nature of the employment in question including the qualifications required and responsibility assumed; inflation; and the total package of benefits enjoyed by employees (wages, bonuses, pensions, health plans, etc).

Effect of Proposed Changes – Private Sector Employers

This is one of the most dramatic changes to private sector labour law in the past 50 years anywhere in Canada. It represents a fundamental departure from free collective bargaining in which employers and unions, under the economic threat of strike or lockout, are best positioned to voluntarily negotiate the terms of their relationship. Either party would be able to avoid the possibility of a strike or lock-out by invoking interest arbitration in any round of bargaining.

Furthermore, it has the potential to extend the “chilling” and “narcotic” effects of interest arbitration to the entire economy. That is, if parties believe their dispute will ultimately be determined by interest arbitration, incentives to compromise to conclude a collective agreement are “chilled”; and, as parties become increasingly reliant upon interest arbitration to resolve their disputes, a “narcotic” effect occurs wherein they become less able to negotiate. In the last decade, there has been criticism that high wage interest arbitration awards in the police and fire sectors have “chilled” unions’ incentives to bargain collectively as they believe a better result can be obtained through interest arbitration.

In addition, because interest arbitration boards are notoriously reluctant to alter non-monetary terms of the collective agreement, mandatory interest arbitration may make it very difficult for employers to implement changes necessary to maintain competitiveness. This may discourage employers from locating to New Brunswick or expanding operations here.

Although unions have long advocated for the introduction of first contract interest arbitration in New Brunswick, this is not included in the proposed reforms.

Effect of Proposed Changes – Employers in Fire and Police Sectors

The proposed changes have a less dramatic impact in the police and fire sectors in which interest arbitration has an established history.

The move to “final offer” interest arbitration for monetary matters is a welcome development in these sectors as the existing replication model has contributed to rapid wage escalation. Similarly, enactment of explicit criteria to be considered by arbitrators will weaken the present dominance of intra-industry comparisons in wage determination analyses which has contributed to an upward wage spiral in fire and police sectors.

However, the decision to impose a “final offer” framework for monetary matters only will continue to make change in other areas difficult.

Effect of Proposed Changes for Public Sector Employers

While the proposed changes are more significant in the private sector, amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act are also proposed to impose a “final offer” framework for monetary matters proceeding to interest arbitration under that legislation.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions about how this may affect your business, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment practice group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top