Skip to content

Nova Scotia Government Introduces Public Services Sustainability (2015) Act

By Brian G. Johnston, QC

On the same day that the Nova Scotia government announced its projected deficit had ballooned to $241 million, it also introduced Bill 148, the Public Services Sustainability (2015) Act (“Act”).

The stated purposes of the Act are to create a framework for public sector employee compensation plans by placing fiscal limits on increases to compensation, to authorize a portion of cost savings identified through collective bargaining, and to fund increases in compensation – all while encouraging meaningful collective bargaining processes.

In addition, the Act establishes a collective bargaining pattern for four-year public sector deals which impose wage increases at the following rates:

Year 1: 0%;
Year 2: 0%;
Year 3: 1%; and
Year 4: 2%.

This pattern mirrors the one that the Province had been hoping to set through tentative deals established with Nova Scotia’s teachers and the Province’s largest union, the NSGEU. Unfortunately, Nova Scotia’s 10,000 teachers rejected the tentative deal and the NSGEU refused to present it to their 7,600 civil service members.

Naturally, there is talk of constitutional challenges, but s. 28 of the Act says that neither an arbitrator nor the Nova Scotia Labour Board has jurisdiction to determine Bill 148’s constitutional validity. Notably, the Act addresses requirements found in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Meredith v. Canada, 2015 SCC 2, which ruled that the federal government’s right to limit wage increases in the 2009 Expenditure Restraint Act passed constitutional muster and did not offend the s. 2(d) Charter right to associate. The wage increases in the Act are consistent with the increases the Nova Scotia government was able to negotiate with both teachers and the civil service and may, therefore, be reflective of “an outcome consistent with actual bargaining processes”.

Nonetheless, we know that there are ongoing court challenges to restraint legislation, including the federal government’s 2011 Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act and the Ontario government’s Bill 115 – Putting Students First Act (even though it was repealed in 2013).

Assuming the majority Liberal government actually passes the Act, its enactment will be delayed, giving all 75,000 public sector employees the opportunity to negotiate. However, any such negotiations will need to be within the boundaries established through the legislated framework. Undoubtedly, collective bargaining – in some manner or another – will continue in Nova Scotia, but court challenges may yet be commenced. Stay tuned! Life is interesting when the cupboard is bare.

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