Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 299, June 1995

Case No 1733 (Canada) - Complaint date: 21-SEP-93 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

INTRODUCTION
A. The complainants' allegations
B. The Government's reply
C. The Committee's conclusions
The Committee's recommendations
Annex

187. The complaint (Case No. 1733) presented by the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CNTU) and the Quebec Provincial Civil Service Union (SFPQ) against the Government of Canada/Quebec is contained in communications dated 21 September and 2 December 1993, respectively.

187. The complaint (Case No. 1733) presented by the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CNTU) and the Quebec Provincial Civil Service Union (SFPQ) against the Government of Canada/Quebec is contained in communications dated 21 September and 2 December 1993, respectively.
188. The Quebec Central Teachers' Union (CEQ) presented a complaint (Case No. 1747) against the Government of Canada/Quebec in communications dated 6 December 1993 and 13 January 1994, respectively. Education International (EI) supported this complaint in a communication dated 28 January 1994.
189. The Union of Government Professionals of Quebec (SPGQ) presented a complaint (Case No. 1748) against the Government of Canada/Quebec in communications dated 3 December 1993 and 14 January 1994, respectively.
190. Lastly, the Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ), together with the Service Employees' Union, local 298, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the Service Employees' Union, local 800, and the Office and Professional Employees' Union, local 57, presented two complaints (Cases Nos. 1749 and 1750) against the Government of Canada/Quebec in communications dated 6 December 1993 and 14 January 1994. The Office and Professional Employees' International Union, local 440, is only a party to Case No. 1749. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) associated itself with these complaints as a complainant in a communication dated 5 May 1994. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) did likewise in a communication dated 7 June 1994.
191. The federal Government, in a communication dated 17 February 1995, forwarded the observations and information provided by the Government of Quebec.
192. Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has not ratified the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), or the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants' allegations

193. All the complainant organizations allege that the Government of Quebec violated the principles of freedom of association by adopting the Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector and the municipal sector (L.Q. 1993, c. 37, referred to hereafter as "the Act"). The main provisions of the Act referred to by the complainant organizations and the Government are contained in the annex to this document.
194. The complainant organizations group together a considerable number of workers in the public and parapublic sectors, including those employed in municipal government, education, health and social services, as well as the hydroelectric and transport sectors.
195. In the extensive documentation submitted to the Committee, the complainant organizations describe the context in which the Quebec legislation was adopted. Since 1991, the public bodies subject to the Act, with the exception of municipal bodies, have already been affected by two successive Acts intended primarily to extend the collective agreements in force without the right to bargain. Specifically, on 10 July 1991 the Quebec National Assembly (the legislature) adopted the Act respecting a temporary limit on remuneration in the public sector, providing for a six-month extension of collective agreements between a public body and any association of employees. On 23 June 1992, the National Assembly adopted the Act respecting the extension of collective agreements and remuneration in the public sector, which set 30 June 1993 as the expiry date of the collective agreements already extended by the Act of 1991 and set an upper limit on increases in salaries and salary scales. The FTQ (Case No. 1750) adds that the Craft Union, the Technicians' Union, section 957 affiliated to the CUPE and the Office Employees' Union, section 2000 affiliated to the CUPE of HYDRO-QUEBEC, a state enterprise operating in the hydroelectric sector, had already been affected in 1990 by another Act extending the term of their collective agreements by four years.
196. This, then, is the context in which the Act was approved by the Quebec National Assembly on 17 June 1993. Summing up, the CNTU (Case No. 1733), referring to the explanatory notes accompanying the text of the Act, states that its purpose is "to postpone the date of expiration of collective agreements of public bodies and agencies by two years and maintain, during that period, the salary rates and scales and the premiums that are effective on the original date of expiration". In addition to this limit on remuneration, the Act provides that beginning on 1 October 1993 and in subsequent years, expenditure relating to the application of these collective agreements will be reduced by 1 per cent by granting up to three days' leave without pay to the workers concerned or any other equivalent measure. In fact, as the SPGQ and the FTQ (Cases Nos. 1748, 1749 and 1750) point out, the Act is openly intended to reduce the budget deficit, with any collective bargaining to take place within the strict framework of the policy objectives outlined above.
197. The complainant organizations state that the Act applies to all public bodies and to municipal bodies, although the latter may exclude themselves from its scope by resolution.
198. According to complainant organizations, it is undeniable that the Act constitutes a blatant violation of the principles of freedom of association. Firstly, they allege that the Act, in particular sections 5 and 6, deny trade union organizations outright the right to bargain freely. The combined effect of the Acts of 1991, 1992 and 1993 is that collective agreements are imposed for a period of more than six years, without any possibility of amending them, and with the main prescriptive clauses adjusted unilaterally by the legislature.
199. Specifically, the complainant organizations allege that the Act deprives them of their right to negotiate their members' condition of remuneration and hence to improve or, at the very least, to maintain their economic situation (section 7 of the Act).
200. Secondly, the complainant organizations allege that the 1 per cent reduction in expenditure relating to the application of the collective agreements covered calls into question previously agreed issues having a financial impact and amounts to the imposition of a unilateral amendment which is entirely contrary to the principles of freedom of association.
201. Thirdly, the complainant organizations allege that the Act denies the right to form and join trade unions, in particular the right of workers to be represented by the organization of their own choosing and the right to organize. The complainant organizations specify that the system of trade union representation in Quebec is based on monopoly representation by one union comprising the majority of employees of a bargaining unit. However, in the months preceding the expiry of a collective agreement, on a date fixed by reference to certain parameters laid down in the Labour Code, the workers employed in this bargaining unit may be represented by another trade union, if this is requested by the majority of the workers. The Act, on the other hand, denies workers the right to choose freely their trade union association on the date on which their collective agreements are due to expire, and in many cases this free choice cannot be exercised until six years after the initial collective agreement was concluded.
202. Fourthly, the complainant organizations allege that the Act, as well as the Labour Code, the Act respecting the negotiation of collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors and the Act respecting the maintenance of essential services in the health and social services sector, limit or even prohibit strike action by imposing excessive penalties in the event of infringement, and fail to provide for genuine compulsory arbitration machinery with a view to compensating for the loss of the right to strike.
203. Lastly, as regards municipal bodies, the FTQ (Case No. 1750) alleges that by adopting the Act the Government interfered in a bargaining process which has nothing to do with it and altered the bargaining rules and the balance of power by leaving the decision whether or not to bargain to the sole discretion of the municipal government.
204. The SPGQ and the FTQ (Cases Nos. 1748, 1749 and 1750) add that the Government's behaviour will cause a drop in unionization among the workers concerned, who will feel there is no point in joining an association if the latter's efforts are only going to be wiped out by legislative action.
205. The SPGQ and the FTQ (Cases Nos. 1748, 1749 and 1750) conclude that through the Act the Government of Quebec has taken it upon itself to determine its employees' conditions of remuneration unilaterally, without any justification and without affording safeguards to protect workers' standards of living, contrary to the principles of freedom of association.
206. All the complainant organizations allege that since 1991 they have displayed a cooperative and responsible attitude in the context of collective bargaining. In particular, they have all urged that a tripartite committee be set up, composed of employers' associations, trade union organizations and government representatives, which would be assigned the task of reviewing the system of collective bargaining in the public and parapublic sectors. The work of this committee was never concluded; the last meeting took place in February 1993 without the Government ever having put forward any formal proposals.
207. In this context, the SPGQ and the FTQ (Cases Nos. 1748, 1749 and 1750) recall that in June 1993 the vast majority of trade union organizations of the public and parapublic sectors had joined in a common front and submitted a proposal to the Quebec Government reminding it of the union's willingness to negotiate their members' conditions of employment, demanding that Bill No. 102 (on which the Act was based) and Bill No. 198 (staff reduction in public bodies) be withdrawn, expressing the desire for an in-depth review of the organization of work and of the public services, stating that the salary scales in force on 30 June 1993 could be maintained for a further year, and even agreeing that the first 1 per cent of savings resulting from work organization efforts go to the Government. The Government rejected this proposal and adopted the Act on 17 June 1993.
208. The complainant organizations allege that the Act is one of a long series of government measures denying genuine freedom of association outright in the public service. From 1982 to 1995, the year in which the collective agreements extended by the Act are due to expire, there is only one period in which collective agreements will have been freely negotiated with the Government of Quebec, that is, from 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1988.
209. The complainant organizations add that the Committee has already on several occasions examined complaints relating to similar legislative measures in Quebec (Case No. 1171, 230th Report, paras. 114-171; Case No. 1356, 248th Report, paras. 67-147; Case No. 1526, 279th Report, paras. 218-269). In the latter case (Case No. 1526), the Committee requested "the Government, in the cases in which employees concerned do not have the right to strike, or whose right to strike is so restricted that it is devoid of any real effectiveness, to establish a procedure allowing the two parties, in the event of a deadlock in negotiations, to have recourse to conciliation and mediation procedures, and then to an independent arbitrator so as to resolve the dispute, whose arbitration awards should be binding on both parties and fully and rapidly implemented". The complainant organizations deplore the fact that the Government of Quebec, contrary to this recommendation, has still not set up genuine machinery for compulsory arbitration.
210. The complainant organizations conclude by unanimously demanding the repeal of the Act and urge the Committee to recommend that a direct contacts mission be sent, with the task of informing itself of the situation of collective bargaining in the public and parapublic sectors in Quebec.
211. In addition, the CEQ (Case No. 1747), the SPGQ (Case No. 1748) and the FTQ (Case No. 1749) put forward a subsidiary request for the Act to be amended so as to provide for conciliation and mediation machinery which would make it possible, in the event of a deadlock, to have recourse to an independent arbitrator in order to settle the dispute. Lastly, they demand the repeal of the Act respecting the maintenance of essential services in the health and social services sector (L.R.Q., c. M-1.1).

B. The Government's reply

212. In its communication dated 17 February 1995, the Government of Quebec grouped together in one document its arguments concerning complaints Nos. 1733, 1747, 1748, 1749 and 1750 given the fact that the grievances raised by the complainant organizations are all similar and apply to the same legislation.
213. Regarding the substance itself the Government observes that the complainant organizations are critical of the Act and allege that it contravenes the principles of freedom of association, the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Committee's precedents and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
214. The Government sets out to show that the Act respects the principles of freedom of association established by the ILO and its bodies. The adoption of the Act is justified by the Government's economic and social policy and the protection of public interests, economic stabilization measures affecting wage rates having been restricted to the essential, without exceeding a reasonable period and having been accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards.
215. Before looking at the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Act, the Government describes, as it has done in previous examinations (see 248th Report, Case No. 1356, paras. 85-88), the legislative framework applicable in Quebec with regard to collective bargaining in the public and municipal sectors. The Labour Code contains rules that govern labour relations and provides general guarantees regarding the right of workers to freedom of association. The Code endorses the monopoly system for trade union representation, under which only one association which represents the absolute majority of the wage-earners in a given establishment or group of wage-earners, is recognized as the bargaining agent for this group (or bargaining unit). This recognition or certification is declared by a special tribunal and usually cannot be challenged except during a specified period preceding the expiry of the collective agreement (period called "raiding period" in the Code). The right to strike and lock-out is widely recognized and may be exercised provided certain notice is given upon the expiry of the collective agreement. The Code suspends this right however for the term of the collective agreement but makes provision for all disagreements concerning the interpretation and application of the agreement to be submitted to a grievance arbitrator responsible for rendering a final decision on the matter.
216. The Government specifies that the provisions of the Code apply to labour relations in the municipal sector and, subject to certain adaptations, also to those in the public and parapublic sectors. As for collective bargaining itself, the Government recalls that it is the Act respecting the process of negotiation of the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors (1985), which has already been examined by the Committee (see 248th Report, Case No. 1356, paras. 67-147), which is applicable. According to the provisions of this 1985 Act, negotiations in these sectors are held on a sectoral basis, in derogation of the general system provided for in the Code, pursuant to which negotiations are held at the enterprise level.
217. In view of this brief description the Government considers that Quebec legislation grants extensive rights to associations of workers in the public and parapublic sectors. The rights, such as the principle of monopoly in trade union representation, the obligatory check-off of union dues for all wage-earners, whether or not they are members of a trade union association, are granted with no discrimination between the trade unions in the private sector and those in the public and parapublic sectors. They constitute appropriate ways of enabling trade unions to promote and defend the economic interests of their members. In the private sector, the weight of these trade union rights is counterbalanced by the economic constraints inherent in an enterprise's competitive posture, which helps the parties to reach an equilibrium. The trade union organizations are all aware that the definitive closing down of an enterprise is not in the interests of the workers. In the public and parapublic sectors, in which services are rendered to the Quebec public in a virtual monopoly situation and in which workers have extensive job security, there is little evidence of the regulating mechanisms of competition. Putting forward convincing arguments that the capacity to pay has been reached or even exceeded is more difficult as, unlike in the private sector, the real threat of closure, bankruptcy or sequestration does not seem realistic.
218. The Government goes on to describe the general context in which the Act was adopted. As in many other countries, the Canadian economic situation, and Quebec was no exception, considerably damaged the state of public finances, making the struggle against debt increasingly difficult. In Quebec, the economic recession in 1990-92 and the repeated cuts in transfer payments from the federal Government caused serious budgetary problems. Underemployment caused a fall in expected budgetary income and a considerable increase in anticipated expenditure. Moreover, unlike the 1982 recession, job losses in Quebec extended over a longer period. In fact, in 1990 and 1992, Quebec lost more than 100,000 jobs, and recent statistics on the subject still indicate a loss of over 30,000 jobs in comparison to the peak reached in 1990. This situation has had serious consequences on the already fragile balance of the state of public finances in Quebec, despite progress made in this province as a result of government expenditure during the 1986-90 period. Whilst from 1985-86 to 1989-90 the Government had reduced its deficit by 50 per cent, this more than doubled from 1989-90 to 1992-93, reaching $4,932.4 million. The proportion of public debt with respect to gross domestic product went from 28.2 per cent in 1989-90 to 35.1 per cent in 1992-93.
219. For the Government it is an indisputable fact that rectifying the situation is a matter which requires the involvement of all the province's citizens, including workers in the public and parapublic sectors, especially as the remuneration of these workers constitutes more than 60 per cent of its total budget, setting aside debt servicing.
220. The Government adds, with respect to the remuneration of public service employees, that its remuneration policy derives essentially from the principle that the total remuneration paid to public sector workers should be comparable on average to that paid to private sector workers in Quebec. The State's capacity to pay conditions the pace at which this principle is applied. Thus the total remuneration for the public sector in 1992 was 7 per cent ahead of that of private sector undertakings employing 200 workers or more. This is what emerges from the data published in 1993 by the Institute for Research and Information on Remuneration (IRIR), a neutral body created by the Act respecting the process of negotiation of the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors in order to obtain wage comparisons between what is paid in the private and public sectors. The Government adds that it has made considerable efforts during the last few years to protect its employees' purchasing power and that, on average, over the 1986-93 period, the growth rate of the average salary of a public service employee has proved to be higher than inflation. It should be noted that private sector workers received wage increases that were, on average, lower than inflation during the same period.
221. The Government recalls that on 27 April 1991, following meetings to negotiate extension models for collective agreements taking into consideration current budgetary constraints, it signed, together with various trade union associations including the FTQ, the CNTU, the CEQ, the SFPQ and the SPGQ, an agreement allowing wages to be frozen for the first six months of 1992, followed by a 3 per cent increase in salary scales, thus extending the expiration date of collective agreements from 31 December 1991 to 30 June 1992. The Act respecting the placing of a temporary ceiling on remuneration in the public sector dated 10 July 1991 in fact took up this agreement.
222. In spring 1992 regular discussions took place with the trade union organizations regarding the public finance situation. After exchanging proposals, the Government and various trade union associations including the FTQ, the CNTU, the SFPQ and the SPGQ, reached another agreement to extend the collective agreements by an additional year (or two years in the case of the CEQ). As well as maintaining the 3 per cent increase on 1 July 1992, this agreement also provided that the 1 per cent lump sum, paid since 1 July 1991 to counter the effects of introducing a federal tax on goods and services, would be incorporated into the salary scales from 1 April 1993 onwards. The date of expiration of the collective agreements was thus extended to 30 June 1993 or, in the case of the CEQ, to 30 June 1994. This agreement in turn was taken up in the Act respecting the prolongation of collective agreements and the remuneration in the public sector, adopted on 23 June 1992.
223. Nevertheless, at the beginning of 1993 the Government was in a position to realize that the economic recovery would necessitate additional cuts. In January 1993 the Government published a document entitled "Public finance in Quebec: Living according to our means" in order to make the population aware of the prevailing budgetary challenges and to involve it in the quest for solutions. The document gives a review of Quebec's economic and financial situation and outlines favourable future fiscal and budgetary trends. In addition, in February 1993, the Government organized a parliamentary committee on the financing of public services in Quebec to which over 70 persons and bodies expressed their views. The inescapable nature of the public debt and the absolute need to reduce it were the principal focuses of agreement in all the interventions made before the committee.
224. In 1993 the Government considered it necessary to take measures that would allow $1.4 billion to be released during that financial year. Thus in March 1993 it presented a proposal to the trade union associations whereby it would maintain the 1 per cent increase in salary scales at an approximate cost of $171 million and proposed extending prevailing collective agreements for a term of two years, until 30 June 1995, with no increase in salary scales and salary rates until then. This stabilizing effect on salaries would however be eased by fully respecting the rules regarding salary increases within the established scales. Thus, those state employees who had not reached the top of their respective salary scales, would be granted an increment. Respecting the rules regarding advancement within salary scales would mean that despite a freeze on salaries and salary scales, approximately 30 per cent of the employees in the public and parapublic sectors would be granted an increase of a little over 3 per cent due to moving up a grade. For the Government this factor alone constituted a total annual outlay of over $150 million. In its proposal it also stated that public sector productivity should be improved, and went on to express its desire to agree on ways to achieve an increase in productivity equivalent to 1 per cent of the wage bill. According to government projections this proposal would mean a saving of $542 million, or 45 per cent of the established financial objective of rationalization.
225. The Government recalls that more than 40 meetings took place during the spring of 1993 with the various trade union associations involved. As the talks, unlike those held in 1991 and in 1992, did not give rise to any agreements in the time available, the Government finally found itself compelled to present the sanctioned Act to the National Assembly on 17 June 1993.
226. The Government explains that the Act aims to achieve two objectives and comes within the framework of the proposal it put forward in March 1993. Firstly, in order to stabilize expenditure pertaining to remuneration and social benefits financed from public funds, the Act extends the collective agreements by two years and maintains salary rates and scales and also premiums over the same period. Secondly, the Act fixes at 1 per cent the reduction in expenditure pertaining to remuneration and benefits to be paid out of public funds, the parties being free to negotiate changes in conditions of employment with a view to substituting other measure for those provided in the Act. The Government insists on the fact that the wage freeze and the recovery of 1 per cent do not only pertain to employees who belong to trade unions, as under the Act these measures also apply to ministers, members of the National Assembly, elected municipal officers, and other categories of personnel such as administrators of state, chief executive officers, officers and management personnel and other personnel members of public bodies who are not included in a bargaining unit, and also health professionals.
227. The Government goes on to reply to the complainant organizations' allegations whereby the Act contravenes the principles of freedom of association. The Government maintains that the Act does not deprive workers of either the right to strike or the right to trade union representation. Its effect is, however, to defer the exercise of these rights for a limited and specific period. This deferral is however only secondary to its main objectives and in fact derives from the legal system governing labour relations in Quebec, which provides that these rights may only be exercised at specific times.
228. Concerning the denial of the right of public service employees to be represented by the organization of their choice, the Government explains that the Act only defers the "raiding period" for employees who are already represented by a certified association and in no way undermines the right of employees who are not union members to form and join trade unions.
229. With regard to including municipal bodies among those to which the provisions of the Act apply, the Government states that they can have recourse to a procedure to stop it applying to them. Whilst respecting their autonomy, the Government explains that the Act allows municipal bodies, where they deem it to be necessary, to curb the disparities between the remuneration in the municipal sector and that in the private sector. In fact, in view of the most recent data from the Centre for Research and Statistics on the Labour Market (CRSMT), the total average hourly remuneration of municipal sector workers is 25 per cent higher than workers in similar positions in the private sector. The Government concludes by pointing out that the Act seems to fulfil a need as the municipalities that have excluded themselves from its application only account for approximately 35 per cent of the total population of Quebec.
230. With respect to the complainant organizations' allegations that the Act does not allow them to improve or, at the very least, to maintain the economic situation of their members, the Government replies that, on the contrary, the legislation makes provision for several measures to protect the standard of living of workers. Firstly, the Act does not restrict the application of a stipulation in a collective agreement providing for a readjustment of salary rates and scales in the framework of an evaluation of relative salary levels among groups of employees (a principle according to which equal pay should be guaranteed for work of equal value). These salary adjustments primarily benefit predominantly female occupations. Likewise, the Act does not stop employees from progressing in their respective salary scales. The lowest paid employees in their particular occupations, that is 30 per cent of employees in the public and parapublic sectors, are still granted an annual or biannual increment corresponding to an annual rise of over 3 per cent. The Government adds that the Act ensures that part-time employees and those who have not been employed by a body for the full year are not penalized and guarantees that the reduction measures will not have a negative impact on retirement schemes and will not result in workers' conditions of employment being lower than those provided for in the Labour Standards Act, which sets minimum standards relating to salaries and other conditions of employment.
231. The Government stresses that the Act still offers workers and trade unions the possibility of renegotiating their collective agreements in that they can decide upon alternative measures to achieve the 1 per cent reduction stipulated in the Act. Any gain in productivity may be taken into account, which means that the parties to an agreement can choose one or more measures to protect the standard of living of the workers who are the most affected. The Government supports its claims by presenting a chronological list of events that led to the conclusion of agreements with some of the complainant organizations regarding in particular the practical application of the 1 per cent reduction measure. On 17 September 1993, the Government proposed to four trade union associations that had joined forces the signing of a framework agreement on work organization. In this connection, two of the complainant organizations, the FTQ and the CEQ, signed framework agreements on 24 November 1993 that incorporated an acknowledgement of the need to improve the efficiency of public and parapublic services in the prevailing economic and budgetary climate. The parties also recognized that an in-depth study of work organization, work rules and public services would allow savings to be identified and improvements to be introduced regarding the efficiency of public services and the quality of life of the workers involved. Over 130 meetings were then held with these complainant organizations and these led, inter alia, to the signing of an agreement with the FTQ, for 1994-95, in the health and social services sector, to replace the 1 per cent reduction measures by other measures. Activities arising from the framework agreements are continuing currently on the basis of jointly established workplans. The Government adds that in December 1994 the new president of the Treasury Board and Minister of State for the Administration and the Public Service reaffirmed the Government's wish to achieve concrete results in the shortest possible time and that an agreement in principle on the organization of work in the public service sector was signed on 19 December 1994 with eight trade unions, including the SFPQ. This agreement makes provision for the setting up of committees in each public service ministry or body. The parties also agreed to set up a committee for the public service as a whole, which will in fact be responsible for following up the implementation of the agreement.
232. Given all these factors, the Government concludes that the Act meets the criteria established by the Committee and the Committee of Experts. Firstly, the Act is an exceptional measure, the Government having done all it possibly could not to intervene through legislative channels in the free negotiation of workers' conditions of employment. The Act respecting the placing of a temporary ceiling on remuneration in the public sector (1991) and the Act respecting the prolongation of collective agreements and the remuneration in the public sector (1992) should not be taken into consideration given that these pieces of legislation gave effect to agreements concluded with the trade union organizations involved. As for the three Acts on which the Committee's examination of Case No. 1171 were based (see 230th Report, paras. 114-171), the Government maintains that their content was of a different nature and that they were adopted in a climate of economic and budgetary crisis similar to the circumstances prevailing when the Act was adopted, although the similarities and differences between the two economic crises could be the subject of extensive debate.
233. The Government states that the Act was restricted to the essential, maintaining, despite the difficult economic situation, job security clauses that are without parallel in the private sector, limiting unpaid leave to a maximum of three days and allowing workers' associations to substitute measures provided in the Act by other more appropriate measures as long as they meet its budgetary requirements.
234. Lastly, the Government considers that the term of the Act is reasonable and that upon the expiration of the period of extension of the collective agreements - a period of two years, sometimes less - the normal machinery for renewing collective agreements will once again apply. For all these reasons, the Government asks the Committee to consider that the complaints call for no further examination.

C. The Committee's conclusions

235. The Committee notes that the complaints concern the intervention of the Quebec legislature in the determination of wages and other conditions of employment in the public, parapublic and municipal sectors by adopting in June 1993 the Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector and the municipal sector (hereafter "the Act"). The complainant organizations allege that the Act contravenes the principles of freedom of association, the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and also the Committee's precedents because, in particular, it purely and simply denies workers' organizations the right to negotiate the salary conditions of their members and the right for their members to be represented by the organization of their choice. The Act also constitutes government interference in the bargaining process at the municipal level and does not provide any safeguards to protect the standard of living of the most affected workers.
236. Before examining the substance of the complaints, the Committee will first explain the circumstances surrounding them. Since October 1991, the Committee has received 20 complaints against the federal Government from various provinces and territories. (Federal Canada, Cases Nos. 1616, 1758, 1800; British Colombia, Case No. 1603; Manitoba, Cases Nos. 1604 and 1715; New Brunswick, Case No. 1605; Nova Scotia, Cases Nos. 1606, 1624 and 1802; Newfoundland, Case No. 1607; Ontario, Case No. 1722; Quebec, Cases Nos. 1733, 1747, 1748, 1749 and 1750; Prince Edward Island, Cases Nos. 1779 and 1801; Yukon, Case No. 1806.) All these complaints relate to the postponement of increases, to reductions in or to the freezing of public service wages and to restrictions on the right of employees to bargain collectively within these various jurisdictions. These measures are sometimes accompanied by a ban on strikes.
237. The Committee considers that the large number of complaints that have been lodged during the course of the last few years reflect serious and profound difficulties in reaching agreement on the determination of employment conditions in the public service in Canada both at the federal level and in the various provinces. In these circumstances, and in order to find solutions to the problems that have arisen, the Committee suggests that the Government make use of the assistance of the International Labour Office, in particular through an advisory mission.
238. In the present cases, the Committee has set out in detail the observations and arguments made by the two parties. It has carefully studied the documentation provided by the complainant organizations and the Government in support of their respective claims.
239. The Committee understands that the complainant organizations are certain that the Act did not represent the best available way of solving the province's economic problems. Moreover, in their view, the Act did not meet the criteria established by the Committee with regard to economic stabilization measures. Instead, it is one in a long series of government actions purely and simply denying all freedom of association in the public service as, since 1992, there has only been one period during which collective agreements have been freely negotiated with the Government.
240. As for the Government, it is of the firm belief that the economic situation had to be resolved and that the Act gave concrete expression to the consensus reached during the parliamentary committee meeting held in February 1993, whereby it was essential to reduce the public debt. Moreover, the Government maintains that the Acts of 1991 and 1992 should not be taken into consideration as they stem from agreements reached with the trade union organizations involved.
241. As has already been mentioned in previous cases concerning various restrictive laws in Canada (241st Report, Cases Nos. 1172, 1234, 1247 and 1260, para. 113; 284th Report, Case No. 1616, para. 633; and 297th Report, Case No. 1758, para. 224), it is not for the Committee to express a view on the soundness of the economic arguments used by the Government to justify its position or on the measures it has adopted (see also the general remarks given in the Study and Information Mission Report concerning Cases Nos. 1172, 1234, 1247 and 1260, 241st Report, paras. 9-13 of the annex). It is, however, for the Committee to express its views as to whether, in taking such action, the Government went beyond what the Committee has considered to be the limits that might be placed temporarily on free collective bargaining. (241st Report, Case No. 1172, para. 114; and 297th Report, Case No. 1758, para. 224.)
242. In similar cases concerning limitations on the right to collective bargaining or economic stabilization measures, the Committee has recognized that when, for urgent reasons relating to national economic interests and, in the framework of a stabilization policy, a government considers that wage rates cannot be settled freely through collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards, in particular those who are likely to be the most affected. (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 641; 222nd Report, Case No. 1147, para. 117; 230th Report, Cases Nos. 1171 and 1173, paras. 162 and 573; 284th Report, Cases Nos. 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607 and 1616, paras. 78, 321, 500, 542, 587 and 635; 286th Report, Case No. 1624, para. 223; 292nd Report, Cases Nos. 1715 and 1722, paras. 187 and 547; and 297th Report, Case No. 1758, para. 225.) The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations adopted the same approach in this respect (General Survey 1994, Freedom of association and collective bargaining, para. 260).
243. In the cases at hand, the Committee cannot disregard the circumstances surrounding the Act. It would be difficult to consider it as an exceptional measure. In fact, it was adopted on the heels of two other pieces of legislation which, taken as a whole, have had the combined effect of freezing the wages of employees in the public and parapublic sectors in Quebec for a considerable time, except for one increase which was permitted in 1992. Moreover, the Committee notes that the combination of the system of trade union representation in Quebec, based on monopoly representation by one union, and the extension of the term of collective agreements, means that trade union representation cannot be questioned or verified for a period of over six years. The Committee is concerned that, this being the situation, the workers could be represented by an organization that no longer corresponds to the wishes of the majority of its members. The Committee recalls that state bodies should refrain from intervening to alter the content of freely concluded collective agreements, in this case by unilaterally imposing the full extension of the collective agreements. It regrets that the Government felt itself forced to adopt the Act to stipulate wages and other conditions of employment of employees in the public, parapublic and municipal sectors and that it did not take any action with regard to the recommendation it has made on two previous occasions (248th Report, Case No. 1356, para. 147; and 279th Report, Case No. 1526, para. 269) whereby it urged the Government, in cases of employees in the public and parapublic sectors, who do not have a really effective right to strike, to establish, during the period of implementation of the economic stabilization measures, a procedure allowing the two parties to have recourse to conciliation and mediation procedures, and then to an independent arbitrator with a view to compensating for the loss of the right to strike.
244. In view of the situation, the Committee considers it useful to refer to the developments included by the Committee of Experts in its most recent General Survey as concerns collective bargaining for workers in the public and parapublic sectors:
- While the principle of autonomy of the parties to collective bargaining is valid as regards public servants covered by the Convention, the special characteristics of the public service described above require some flexibility in its application. Thus, in the view of the Committee, legislative provisions which allow Parliament or the competent budgetary authority to set upper and lower limits for wage negotiations or to establish an overall "budgetary package" within which the parties may negotiate monetary or standard-setting clauses (for example: reduction of working hours or other arrangements, varying wage increases according to levels of remuneration, fixing a timetable for readjustment provisions) or those which give the financial authorities the right to participate in collective bargaining alongside the direct employer are compatible with the Convention, provided they leave a significant role to collective bargaining. It is essential, however, that workers and their organizations be able to participate fully and meaningfully in designing this overall bargaining framework, which implies in particular that they must have access to all the financial, budgetary and other data enabling them to assess the situation on the basis of the facts.
- This is not the case of legislative provisions which, on the grounds of the economic situation of a country, impose unilaterally, for example, a specific percentage increase and rule out any possibility of bargaining, in particular by prohibiting the exercise of means of pressure subject to the application of severe sanctions. The Committee is aware that collective bargaining in the public sector "... calls for verification of the available resources in the various public bodies or undertakings, that such resources are dependent upon state budgets and that the period of duration of collective agreements in the public sector does not always coincide with the duration of budgetary laws - a situation which can give rise to difficulties". The Committee therefore takes full account of the serious financial and budgetary difficulties facing governments, particularly during periods of prolonged and widespread economic stagnation. However, it considers that the authorities should give preference as far as possible to collective bargaining in determining the conditions of employment of public servants; where the circumstances rule this out, measures of this kind should be limited in time and protect the standard of living of the workers who are the most affected. In other words, a fair and reasonable compromise should be sought between the need to preserve as far as possible the autonomy of the parties to bargaining, on the one hand, and measures which must be taken by governments to overcome their budgetary difficulties, on the other. (See General Survey, 1994, op. cit., paras. 263 and 264.)
245. The Committee draws the Government's attention to the above-mentioned observations. While noting the efforts that the Government has made to maintain the purchasing power of these workers, the Committee expresses its concern that the Act does not contain appropriate guarantees for the protection of the living standards of the workers most affected. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures mentioned above and to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.
246. It is however with interest that the Committee notes the Government's declaration whereby it intended to pursue consultation and dialogue to find, where possible, acceptable solutions for all, and that negotiations had been held, following the entry into force of the Act, regarding the practical application of the 1 per cent reduction measure relating to expenditure for benefits payable from public funds. The Committee notes the agreements that have recently been concluded between the parties involved. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments, and particularly of any agreements concluded in the future in this regard.

The Committee's recommendations

247. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) Regretting that the Government adopted the Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector and the municipal sector unilaterally to fix wages and other conditions of employment of employees working in these sectors, the Committee once again requests the Government to establish, for the period of implementation of the economic stabilization measures, a procedure allowing the parties involved to have recourse to conciliation and mediation procedures, and then to an independent arbitrator with a view to compensating for the loss of the right to strike.
- (b) In order to facilitate finding solutions to the difficulties in reaching agreements in the public service, the Committee suggests that the Government make use of the assistance of the International Labour Office, in particular through an advisory mission.
- (c) The Committee expresses its concern that the Act does not contain appropriate guarantees for the protection of the living standards of the workers most affected and requests the Government to take the necessary measures and keep it informed of any developments in this regard.
- (d) Noting with interest the agreements that have been concluded regarding the practical application of the 1 per cent reduction measure relating to expenditure for benefits payable from public funds, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments, and particularly of any agreements concluded in the future in this regard.

Annex

An Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector and the
municipal sector (1993, c. 37)
Explanatory notes
The object of this Bill is to postpone the date of expiration of collective
agreements of public bodies and agencies by two years and maintain, during
that period, the salary rates and scales and the premiums that are effective
on the original date of expiration. The Bill proposes to effect a reduction of
1 per cent, from 1 October 1993, in expenses arising out of the application of
the collective agreements through the allotment of a maximum of three days of
unpaid leaves or through the implementation of an equivalent measure. The
parties to a collective agreement may, however, agree on other measures that
would set a similar limit or achieve an equivalent reduction.
The Bill also provides that equivalent measures will be implemented in respect
of administrators of State, chief executive officers, officers and management
personnel and other personnel members of public bodies or agencies who are not
governed by a collective agreement. Similar measures will also apply in
respect of the Members of the National Assembly and health professionals.
Finally, the Bill provides that the ceiling on remuneration and the reduction
of expenses will also apply to municipal entities unless, by resolution, they
waive the application of the provisions of this Bill.
Chapter I. Interpretation
1. For the purposes of this Act, the following bodies are public bodies:
(1) the Government, its departments and the government agencies whose
personnel is appointed or remunerated in accordance with the Public Service
Act (R.S.Q., Chapter F-3.1.1);
(2) school boards, colleges, establishments or institutions, any body which is
similar to a school board or classified as an establishment or institution and
government agencies to which the Act respecting the process of negotiation of
the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors (R.S.Q.,
Chapter R-8.2) applies, as well as regional health and social services boards,
regional health and social services councils and the Conseil scolaire de l'Ile
de Montréal;
(3) any other body of which the personnel is remunerated according to
standards and scales which are, by law, determined or approved by the
Government or stipulated in a collective agreement negotiated and agreed with
the concurrence of the Government;
(4) educational institutions at the university level referred to in paragraphs
1 to 11 of section 1 of the Act respecting educational institutions at the
university level (R.S.Q., Chapter E-14.1);
(5) educational institutions accredited for purposes of subsidies in
accordance with the Act respecting private education (1992, Chapter 68).
2. The National Assembly, persons designated by the National Assembly under an
Act, and persons designated by the Government under an Act, where their
personnel is appointed or remunerated in accordance with the Public Service
Act, shall be regarded as public bodies.
Holders of ambulance service permits shall also be regarded as public bodies.
3. Municipalities, mandatory bodies of municipalities and supramunicipal
bodies within the meaning of sections 18 and 19 of the Act respecting the
pension plan of elected municipal officers (R.S.Q., Chapter R-9.3) are
municipal bodies.
...
Chapter II. Public bodies
Division I
Prolongation of collective agreements
5. The date of expiration of a collective agreement which is binding on a
public body and an association of employees and in force on (insert here the
date of coming into force of this section) shall be deferred for two years,
subject to section 10.
6. The date of expiration of a collective agreement between a public body and
an association of employees which expires before (insert here the date of
coming into force of this section) shall also be deferred for two years if, on
that date, no agreement for its renewal or replacement has been entered into.
Where the date of expiration of a collective agreement to which the Act
respecting the placing of a temporary ceiling on remuneration in the public
sector and the Act respecting the prolongation of collective agreements and
the remuneration in the public sector apply has not been deferred by agreement
in conformity with either of those Acts, the provisions concerning the date of
expiration and the ceiling on remuneration contained in either or both of
those Acts, as the case may be, shall apply to the collective agreement from
its original date of expiration, and the provisions of this division shall
apply from the date of expiration thus deferred.
7. Notwithstanding sections 5 and 6, a collective agreement which provides for
a ceiling on the salary rates and scales and the premiums of employees from
1992 or 1993 shall be postponed until a date occurring two years after the
date on which the ceiling provided for in the agreement began to apply.
8. In the case of a first collective agreement ratified after the coming into
force of this section between a public body and an association of employees,
the salary rates and scales and the premiums applicable to the employees
concerned, on the day preceding the date on which the first collective
agreement takes effect, shall be maintained for two years from such effective
date.
The first paragraph does not apply to a group of employees whose rates, scales
and premiums were subject to the ceiling provided for in section 26 or 27 for
at least two years before the first collective agreement took effect. If the
ceiling has applied to the group of employees for a period of less than two
years, the rates, scales and premiums applicable on the day preceding the
effective date of the first collective agreement shall be maintained from such
effective date, until a date occurring two years after the date on which the
ceiling began to apply.
9. The period referred to in section 7 or the second paragraph of section 8
during which the ceiling is applicable shall be calculated independently of
the deferment period of six months provided for in section 5 of the Act
respecting the placing of a temporary ceiling on remuneration in the public
sector.
10. The date of expiration of a collective agreement governed by any of the
following agreements shall be deferred for one year:
(1) the "Entente sur la prolongation jusqu'au 30 juin 1994 des conventions
collectives se terminant le 30 juin 1992" entered into between the
Gouvernement de Québec and the Centrale de l'enseignement du Quebec on 29 June
1992;
(2) the agreement entered into on 3 July 1992 between the management
negotiating committee for the school boards for Protestants, Protestant
confessional school boards and dissentient school boards for Protestants
(CPNCP) and the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers of Quebec (PAPT)
whose object is the prolongation, until 30 June 1994, of an agreement between
the parties ending on 30 June 1992.
(3) the agreement entered into on 7 August 1992 between the management
negotiating committee for the school boards for Catholics, the Catholic
confessional school boards and the dissentient school boards for Catholics
(CPNCC) and the Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers (PACT) whose
object is the prolongation, until 30 June 1994, of an agreement between the
parties ending on 30 June 1992.
11. The salary rates and scales and the premiums in force on the date of
expiration of a collective agreement referred to in section 5 or 6 shall
remain in force, without increases, for the period during which the collective
agreement is prolonged.
12. In the case of a collective agreement referred to in section 10, the
salary rates and scales and the premiums in force on 30 June 1993 shall remain
in force, without increases, until the new date of expiration of the
collective agreement, notwithstanding any inconsistent stipulation.
...
19. For the purposes of the Labour Code, strikes are prohibited during the
term of a collective agreement referred to in section 5, 6 or 10, even if the
agreement contains a clause permitting a review thereof by the parties.
Division II
Reduction of the amount of expenses arising out of the application of
collective agreements
20. Every public body, for the purpose of reducing by 1 per cent the annual
amount of its expenses relating to the remuneration and social benefits of the
employees governed by a collective agreement must, before 31 March 1994 and
every twelve-month period thereafter, give each employee such number of unpaid
leaves as is determined by the Government not in excess of three days.
For such groups of employees as are determined by the Government, the public
body must take, however, as an alternative to the allotment of unpaid leaves,
any measure prescribed by the Government from among the following measures:
(1) an equivalent reduction of the number of sick leaves credited, in so far
as they are refundable each year, or a reduction of the indemnity standing in
lieu of sick leaves;
(2) an equivalent number of unpaid holidays or days of vacation;
(3) an equivalent reduction of the indemnity pertaining to the annual
vacation.
...
22. For the purposes of the provisions of section 20, the Government may, in
respect of any group of employees it determines:
(1) establish the number of unpaid leaves to be allotted by a public body to
its employees;
(2) prescribe rules for the determination by public bodies of the dates of and
the conditions applicable to the unpaid leaves;
(3) prescribe the implementation of any of the alternative measures set out in
the second paragraph of section 20.
23. The parties to a collective agreement may negotiate and ratify amendments
to the conditions of employment of employees entailing a reduction of at least
1 per cent of the annual amount of expenses referred to in section 20.
For the purposes of a reduction to which the first paragraph applies, any
stipulation of a collective agreement may, in the sectors of education and
social affairs to which the Act respecting the process of negotiation of the
collective agreements in the public and parapublic sector applies, be
negotiated and agreed for the whole of Quebec or at the local level. In the
latter case, the stipulation shall be negotiated and agreed with the approval
of the Minister of Education, the Minister of Higher Education and Science or
the Minister of Health and Social Services, as the case may be, within the
scope of a mandate authorized by the Conseil du trésor.
24. Where the Government considers that an agreement entered into between a
public body referred to in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of section 1 and an association
of employees on stipulations referred to in section 23 entails a reduction of
at least 1 per cent of the annual amount of expenses referred to in section
20, it may, by order, notify the parties. In such a case, the stipulations
negotiated and ratified by the parties shall replace, in respect of the
employees to whom they apply, the provisions of section 20 and 22.
If an agreement is entered into between another public body and an association
of employees on stipulations having the same effect as that provided for in
the first paragraph, the stipulations negotiated and ratified by the parties
shall replace, in respect of the employees to whom they apply, the provisions
of sections 20 to 22, where the parties so provide.
25. Sections 20 to 23 apply, notwithstanding any inconsistent provision or
stipulation of an Act or collective agreement.
Division III
Persons not covered by a collective agreement 1. Members and personnel of
public bodies
26. Administrators for State and chief executive officers and members of
public bodies referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 of section 1 shall be
remunerated, for the period beginning on 1 July 1993 and ending on 30 June
1995, according to the salary rates and scales and the premiums in force on 30
June 1993.
The same applies to the remuneration of the management personnel and other
members of the personnel of the public service not governed by a collective
agreement.
27. Every person empowered to determine the salary rates and scales and the
premiums of persons not referred to in section 26 who are officers, chief
executive officers, members of the management personnel or other members of
the personnel of a public body not governed by a collective agreement shall,
for a two-year period beginning in 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995, fix those rates,
scales and premiums subject to a ceiling similar to that applicable to the
employees to whom Division I applies.
28. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of an Act, every public body
shall apply to its chief executive officers, officers and management personnel
and to the other members of its personnel who do not belong to a bargaining
unit, the measures set out in sections 20 to 22; the same applies to the
Government in respect of administrators of the State.
The public body may, however, adopt another measure in respect of the
remuneration or social benefits for the persons referred to in the first
paragraph which causes a reduction equivalent to that provided for in the
first paragraph to be effected. The provisions of the said paragraph shall, in
that case, cease to apply to those persons.
29. The total payroll applicable, on 31 March 1993, to the members of the
office staff of a minister, the staff of an office to which section 124.1 of
the Act respecting the National Assembly (R.S.Q., Chapter A-23.1) applies and
the staff of the Members of the National Assembly shall be maintained from 1
April 1993 and shall not be increased until 1 April 1995.
2. Members of the National Assembly
30. The increase of the annual indemnity of the Members of the National
Assembly taking effect on 1 October 1993 pursuant to section 16 of the Act
respecting the prolongation of collective agreements and the remuneration in
the public sector is cancelled.
3. Health professionals
31. In any agreement under section 19 of the Health Insurance Act (R.S.Q.,
Chapter A-29) in force on (insert here the date of coming into force of this
section) and in any agreement which renews or replaces such an agreement, the
amounts of the general tariff objectives applicable to medical specialists,
general practitioners and optometrists and the tariffs applicable for the
provision of insured services under that Act shall be reduced by 1 per cent
from 1 December 1993 and shall not, thereafter, be increased before 1 December
1995.
...
Chapter III. Municipal bodies
Division I
Prolongation of collective agreements
36. The date of expiration of a collective agreement between a municipal body
and an association of employees, in force on (insert here the date of coming
into force of this section), shall be deferred for two years.
37. The date of expiration of a collective agreement which expires before
(insert here the date of coming into force of this section) shall also be
deferred for two years if, on that date, no agreement for its renewal or
replacement has been entered into.
38. The salary rates and scales and the premiums in force on the date of
expiration of a collective agreement to which section 36 or 37 applies shall
remain in force, without increases, for the period during which the collective
agreement is prolonged.
...
Division II
Reduction of the amount of expenses arising out of the application of the
collective agreements
40. Every municipal body shall, in order to reduce by 1 per cent the annual
amount of its expenses relating to the remuneration and social benefits of the
employees governed by a collective agreement, allot, each year from 1 January
1994, to each employee concerned, a maximum of three unpaid leaves fixed by
the municipal body or take, in respect of those employees, any of the measures
it determines from among the measures provided for the in second paragraph of
section 20.
The first and second paragraphs of section 21, adapted as required, apply.
41. A municipal body and an association of employees may negotiate and ratify
amendments to the conditions of employment of employees which entail a
reduction of at least 1 per cent of the annual amount of expenses referred to
in section 40. Where the parties so provide, the stipulations shall replace
the provisions of section 40 in respect of the employees to whom they apply.
42. Sections 40 and 41 apply, notwithstanding any inconsistent provision or
stipulation of an Act or collective agreement.
Division III
Elected municipal officers and persons not governed by a collective agreement
43. The remuneration attaching to the offices of elected municipal officers,
fixed in accordance with the Act respecting the remuneration of elected
municipal officers (R.S.Q., Chapter T-11.001) and applicable in a municipality
on 31 December 1993, shall be reduced by 1 per cent from 1 January 1994 and
shall not be increased, thereafter, before 1 January 1996.
The same rule applies to any other remuneration attaching to the offices of
members of the council or of a committee or board of a municipal body.
44. The municipal body which determines the salary rates and scales and the
premiums of its chief executive officers and management personnel or any
member of its personnel not governed by a collective agreement shall, for a
period of two years beginning in 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995, fix those rates,
scales and premiums, subject to the same ceiling as that applicable to the
other employees to whom Division I applies.
The municipal body shall, in addition, apply in respect of such employees the
measures set out in section 40. It may, however, adopt in respect of the
remuneration or social benefits of the persons referred to in the first
paragraph, another measure which causes the reduction provided for in section
40 to be effected. The provisions of that section shall, in that case, cease
to apply to those persons.
Division IV
Withdrawal
45. A municipal body may, by a resolution adopted before 15 September 1993,
waive the application of Divisions I to III of this chapter. Where such is the
case, the provisions of those divisions are deemed never to have had effect in
respect of that municipal body.
...
Chapter IV. Miscellaneous and final provisions
...
48. This Act is not intended to restrict the application of a stipulation of a
collective agreement in force on (insert here the date of coming into force of
this section) which provides for an adjustment to the salary rates or scales
or the premiums within the framework of an evaluation of the salary relativity
of groups of employees.
...
50. Any order made by the Government under this Act takes effect on the date
on which it is made or on any prior or later date fixed therein. The
Regulations Act (R.S.Q., Chapter R-18.1) does not apply to such an order, if
any.
51. This Act does not dispense the public bodies, association of employees and
employees to whom or which this Act applies from the obligation to comply with
the provisions of the Act respecting the placing of a temporary ceiling on
remuneration in the public sector and the Act respecting the promulgation of
collective agreements and the remuneration in the public sector which are
applicable to them.
52. For the purposes of this Act, the date of expiration of a collective
agreement referred to in section 27 of the Act respecting the prolongation of
collective agreements and the remuneration in the public sector which has not
been deferred by agreement according to the first or second paragraph of
section 5 of that Act shall be considered to have been deferred for one year
under the third paragraph of that section. The date shall also be deferred for
two years in accordance with section 5 of this Act.
Sections 11, 13, 14, 15, the third paragraph of section 17 and section 19
apply to a collective agreement to which the first paragraph applies.
...
57. The provisions of this Act will come into force on the date or dates to be
fixed by the Government, except section 45 which comes into force on 17 June
1993.
The dates of coming into force of the provisions of sections 20 to 25, 28 and
56 shall not be prior to 1 October 1993.