Fair Representation Act

Summary#

This bill changes the Canada Labour Code to stop employers from creating or controlling unions. It defines what “domination or influence” by an employer means, sets clear penalties, and creates a process to remove certification (official status) from any union found to be employer‑controlled.

• Defines employer “domination or influence” over a union as interfering with forming or running a union, representing employees, or giving money or other support.
• Bars the federal labour board from certifying such a union and says any contract with it does not count under the Code.
• Requires unions seeking certification to be governed by leaders elected by the employees they want to represent.
• Lets employees apply anytime to revoke a union’s certification if they believe the employer controls it; if 25% of workers apply, the labour board must investigate. Applications are generally paused during a legal strike or lockout unless the board agrees.
• If the board finds employer control, it must revoke the union’s certification.
• Creates penalties for employers, including a summary conviction fine up to $100,000, and allows ticket-style administrative penalties by regulation. Requires a government review after five years. Takes effect 30 days after Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

• Workers (federally regulated workplaces like airlines, banks, telecoms, interprovincial transport)

  • Stronger protection for an independent union of your choice.
  • If you believe your union is employer‑controlled, you and co‑workers can apply to the labour board to review it; with 25% support, the board must look into it.
  • If the union is decertified, your union contract would not count under the Code until a new agent is chosen, which could affect grievance steps and bargaining timelines.
  • During a legal strike or lockout, these applications usually cannot be made unless the board allows it.
  • Your union’s leaders must be elected by the employees in your bargaining unit.

• Employers (federally regulated)

  • Clearer, broader rules on what counts as interfering with a union. Even indirect help (money or other support) can trigger a violation.
  • Higher risks and costs if you cross the line: fines up to $100,000 and possible administrative penalties.
  • If a union you set up or support is found to be influenced, its certification will be revoked and its contract will not count under the Code.
  • The labour board can start an inquiry on its own.

• Trade unions

  • Must ensure full independence from employers and avoid accepting employer support.
  • Need governance where leaders for a unit are elected by the employees in that unit.
  • Face decertification if found to be employer‑dominated, which could disrupt bargaining and representation.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Protects workers’ free choice by stopping “company‑dominated” unions and keeping bargaining fair.
• Clear definition plus real penalties will deter employer interference and lift standards across federally regulated workplaces.
• A simple worker‑driven trigger (25% support) empowers employees to challenge suspect unions.
• Requiring elected leaders improves accountability to the workers being represented.
• Revoking certification for influenced unions removes sham contracts that can hold down wages and rights.
• A five‑year review ensures Parliament can fix any gaps or unintended effects.

Opponents' View#

• The definition of “influence” may be too broad and could capture routine employer‑union interactions, creating legal risk.
• Decertifying a union can leave workers without representation and unsettle workplaces, especially if it voids existing contracts under the Code.
• The 25% threshold might invite strategic campaigns during tense periods, adding conflict and delay.
• Fines up to $100,000 and added compliance rules may hit small or mid‑sized employers hard.
• Existing law already bans employer interference; critics say this adds complexity instead of enforcing current rules.
• The requirement about unit‑level elected governance might disrupt how national or multi‑site unions are structured.