Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to the ESDC July 2026 backgrounder document and in addition to previously submitted recommendations for consideration, AMFA makes the following submission.

Undoubtedly the most important and controversial component of the review, section 107 and any changes made thereto will fall under intense scrutiny by either Union or Employer, depending on the path the government takes in its approach to reform. It is also worth noting that failure to change section 107 will also meet intense scrutiny from labour leaders alike, as the tool has been used to supress the very fundamental power and right that labour unions possess; the right to withdraw our services. As the intent here is to find a solution that yields improvement for both sides, AMFA believes it necessary to examine Section 107 and its use, and the concerns that arise from the pattern of overuse, or misuse.

The reality of section 107, in its recent application, is that it ends negotiation by ordering the parties to the board or forced arbitration. This is the opposite of negotiation. When Unions hold the power to strike, employers are forced to examine the viability of their business post-strike and then determine which path is more cost-effective: pay the employee or weaken the business and therefore revenue. In some instances, this is as irrelevant as a rounding error on the overall financial spreadsheet of the company. In other cases, a strike can cause irreparable harm to an operation or reputation of a business. This powerful pressure ensures that the employer will remain honest and operate in good faith throughout the course of bargaining.

If the government were to use social impact as a determining factor as to when to apply 107, and force employees back to work they will be compounding the problem by their involvement. Economic and social impact is the entire point of a strike. A strike that does not have social and economic impact is not worth organizing as it would be fruitless. The union would eventually be broken as its members would not support an ineffective strike that leaves them on an irrelevant picket line with no income. Furthermore, social impact is taken from perspective and is difficult to measure without allowing the strike to run its course. Without the actual experience of the strike, the employer will never truly be able to measure the economic impact and the government or even the affected individuals will have only an assumed concept of impact. Employers will likely develop a better preparedness strategy when encountering negotiations that could lead to a strike after having experienced one. This is why Section 107 cannot be used to prevent a lawful strike but rather should be used exclusively in rare situations where excessively long strikes or lockouts result in real emergencies or scenarios that deeply impact Canadians and the economy. Continued misuse of 107, as we have seen since 2024, will create an environment in which federal sector employers will increasingly rely on government intervention in the name of social impact, economic impact, or both.

Defining “Industrial Peace” is a monumental task that should be explored on a deeper level and remain subject to review on a case-by-case basis. Industrial peace can be seen as a standard that changes with the political and economic landscape of an industry or even the entire country. When times are good, we tend to find peace more readily. Conversely, when times are bad, it is more difficult to feel “at peace”. Therefore, the same set of contractual circumstances for an employer and union can result in completely different elements of peace and stability once impacted by external factors. Providing an appropriate work-life balance, fair wages and benefits, a safe and healthy work environment and treating employees with respect should foster a culture of Industrial peace for workers. However, even the appeal of these elements will fade if workloads increase, resources are cut, or performance pressure builds on an employee. Employers will prioritize protability, process efficiency, and cost reduction to maintain shareholder demands and meet growth expectations whilst navigating the latest socio-economic or geopolitical crisis.

Many employees are informed of their CEO’s salary and assume correctly that their actual compensation is far greater. The gap between executive compensation and frontline worker compensation has stretched so far that the two will likely never share a common understanding of Industrial Peace. A set definition on Industrial peace is harmful to labour stability, as both sides will use a different set of parameters to form their version of the meaning of the term. Rather, an analysis of what is required to establish labour peace as viewed by both parties is a more reasonable approach. This is the “good faith” intent of collective bargaining, and true good faith efforts ought to give rise to industrial peace provided the parties remain honest, respectful and forthcoming in bargaining. This is the core issue. Bad faith bargaining is not an easy issue to address, but it should be a priority. When both parties are operating on an even keel the scales of bargaining balance and the employers’ needs are met in exchange for appropriate terms. This balance is demonstrated in the form of ratifiation by the membership resulting, in industrial peace.

Rather than impose rule over bargaining via Section 107 under a definition of Industrial Peace that may not effectively apply, the Government should use its resources to keep both parties operating in good faith and remaining at the bargaining table, before and during strike or lockout. Increased resources at the Canada Industrial Relations Board are necessary to improve the processing of bad faith bargaining and unfair labour practice complaints that often occur leading up to and during collective bargaining. Many ULPs submitted are not addressed in a timely fashion, rendering them useless in the eyes of the Union and irrelevant in the eyes of the employer.

FMCS involvement to the bargaining process is another approach that can provide valuable contributions when applied appropriately. This can also impact the level of bad faith bargaining that exists between the parties. When a neutral party enters the environment and can see how the two are proceeding, they can hopefully offer guidance on effective resolution. The success of the mediator is largely dependent upon the mediators own understanding and experience in the issues being resolved. The use of industry-specific mediators would vastly improve the results of the services FMCS intends to provide. A deeper understanding is often required to assist parties in negotiation. Using a mediator with personal experience in the field would allow for this level of understanding as well as reduce the time required to educate the mediator on the degree of importance of the issues being resolved. Often the mediator may not grasp the relevance to either side because they have not personally been exposed to the realities of the subject. Finding mediators with prior work experience and first-hand knowledge of the specific industry would have a significant impact to first contract development. These often prove to be the most difficult to establish and can create a very challenging environment given the emotions that are naturally generated by the experience. FMCS involvement from the onset of a first contract could help the parties stay on track and ensure that bad faith bargaining is kept to a minimum. Alternatively, the parties may wish to exclude FMCS altogether and attempt to come to an agreement without the assistance or intervention of FMCS. This should be the desired outcome of both parties if they are truly acting in good faith and the choice to involve FMCS at all should remain with the parties. When the parties are unable to come to an agreement, and a strike mandate is attained, that mandate should remain in effect until such time that the parties have resolved their issues and entered into a collective agreement. The pursuit of a strike mandate should be at the discretion of the union, and there should be no shelf life on the decision if the union has met the requirements of the code in its acquisition.

Throughout the life of the agreement, Employers and Union alike will undoubtedly encounter countless situations in which they are unable to come to terms without some form of outside intervention. The grievance process is the only tool the union has to enforce compliance to the agreement; however, it is often ineffective without the introduction of arbitration. Employers and Unions will always have opposing perspectives on the issues they dispute, and a neutral party is often necessary to reach a resolution. The primary issue with arbitration is the length of time required to select and obtain the services of an arbitrator and then find suitable dates and times for availability. This is an area of labour relations in need of vast improvement. Resources allocated to dispute resolution could advance the relationship between union and employer if specific disputes could be resolved in a timely manner. When grievances pile up and arbitrations are delayed, members and union leaders grow impatient, and morale erodes. This results in a workforce that is unhappy with both the employer and its own union, neither of which can help the situation. Finding a path to expedited arbitration is critical in improving member satisfaction and therefore improved labour relations. Both union and employer ought to have a shared interest in resolving their disputes in a timely manner to promote industrial peace.

Any element of the Code that provides flexibility to the employer in how to apply those terms should be subject to agreement by the union. Coming to a formal agreement on any labour variable will reduce confusion and dispute thereby resulting in improved labour peace in the workplace. Specifically, in reference to the calendar year of medical leave, if the employer has a specific need or interest in adjusting the reference period this should be a negotiated element of the agreement no different from any other term that either party is pursuing. Such is the nature of bargaining and specific allowances should not be granted to the employer out of convenience or administrative efficiency. Certainly, an employee ought to be able to make a written attestation as to the validity of their use of medical leave with pay. Quite often, an individual may require the use of medical leave without having consulted a medical professional, for any number of reasons. Many have chronic issues, or intermittent conditions of which professional consultation is not necessary at each occurrence, regardless of the duration of the absence. Furthermore, it’s well known that Canada’s medical system is overburdened and under resourced and the professionals that we do have in the medical field should be focused on helping Canadians live healthier happier lives rather than validating their absences from work. Trust between employee and employer is paramount to the relationship, and although in certain applications medical notes from a professional are in the interest of all, a more personal approach seems reasonable and likely yields more honest results.

On the issue of wage theft, AMFA believes there is a specific need for attention within the skilled trades in apprentice advancement and cross-utilization of comparable skill set classifications. Apprentices that have met the necessary qualification of a higher pay classification are often held back from advancement until a position is “available”. This is unacceptable and should be protected by the code. Apprentices are junior employees that are working to establish themselves within their industry and are sometimes subject to performance pressure by ‘old-school’ managers that suppress their advancement until they have “earned it” regardless of the time they have served within their apprenticeship or the qualifications they have acquired. This type of wage theft ought to be protected by the code as the demographics research shows that Canada will need an increasing amount of young people to enter the skilled trades if it intends to meet the demands of projected growth in infrastructure and technology. Supporting apprentice development in trades is paramount to our success and should be provided by specific parameter for protecting development and advancement.