This bill prohibits public sector entities in British Columbia from issuing solicitations for public construction projects that require — or have the effect of requiring — vendors to be party to a collective agreement, to employ workers who are members of a specified trade union, or to employ only non‑union workers. It also bans solicitations that force non‑unionized employees to pay fees to unions in lieu of dues, forbids use of a vendor’s workforce union status as an evaluation criterion, and stops public sector entities from paying union dues for non‑union employees on a covered project.
The change is a procurement rule, not a labour‑law rewrite: it reshapes how government and other public bodies draft RFPs and how contractors bid and staff public construction work. The measure will affect project labour agreements, use of hiring halls, and standard procurement practices; it also leaves open regulatory power to designate entities and contains transitional carve‑outs for existing solicitations and contracts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars public sector entities from issuing solicitations that require vendors to sign collective agreements or to hire workers of a particular union status, forbids using workforce union status as an evaluation factor, and prevents the Crown from paying union dues or requiring “in‑lieu” payments for non‑union workers on a project.
Who It Affects
Applies to the government, government organizations and local public bodies under the Procurement Services Act, plus any entities later prescribed by regulation; directly affects procurement officers, construction contractors, trade unions and bargaining agents, and workers on public construction projects.
Why It Matters
It imports a strict neutrality rule into construction procurement that will force revisions to templates, bid evaluation processes, and how projects are staffed, with potential knock‑on effects for project labour agreements, training programs tied to union arrangements, and contracting practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes procurement neutrality about union status: public sector entities must not ask for or design solicitations that either explicitly require vendors to be signatories to collective agreements or that effectively steer employment toward or away from union membership. Practically, procurement teams will need to review RFP language that references collective agreements, preferred hiring channels, or exclusivity with unions; any clause that might “have the effect of requiring” a unionized or non‑unionized workforce must be removed.
On evaluation, the bill takes away a familiar lever: contracting authorities cannot award points or otherwise evaluate bids based on whether a vendor employs unionized or non‑unionized workers. That forces procurement offices to develop alternative evaluation criteria focused strictly on price, capability, experience and other neutral measures, and it requires clear documentation to show union status did not influence scoring.The statute also targets payments tied to union status.
Public sector entities must not pay dues or fees to a union in relation to non‑unionized employees on a project, nor may solicitations require non‑union workers to make payments “in lieu” of dues. For contractors that historically made such arrangements as part of project staffing or PLAs, this removes one mechanism for harmonizing pay or benefit treatment between union and non‑union crews.Implementation will be administrative and legal.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council can extend the bill’s reach by regulation to other entities. The act preserves solicitations and contracts that are binding before it comes into force, so agencies will need a snapshot of active procurements.
The bill contains no new prescribed offences in text and expressly states section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to it, leaving enforcement and remedies unclear until regulations or administrative policies are issued.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2(a)–(d) forbids solicitations that require a vendor to be party to a collective agreement, to hire members of a specified union, to hire only non‑union workers, or to require non‑union workers to pay fees to a union.
Section 3 prohibits using a vendor’s employment of unionized or non‑unionized employees as an evaluation criterion when scoring bids for a construction solicitation.
Section 4 bars public sector entities from paying union dues or fees in relation to non‑unionized employees who would work on the project covered by the solicitation.
Section 5 prevents public sector entities from entering into agreements that would impede compliance with the Act; Section 6 carves out application of section 5 of the Offence Act to this statute, creating ambiguity about penalty mechanisms.
Sections 8 and 9 are transitional: binding solicitations issued before commencement and contracts entered into before commencement remain valid and are not disturbed by the new rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and cross‑reference to Labour Relations Code
This section imports key labour definitions (bargaining agent, trade union, unit) by referencing the Labour Relations Code and sets the scope for “construction project” and “public sector entity.” That cross‑reference matters: disputes over who counts as a “unionized employee” will be resolved by existing labour definitions, so procurement officers will need to align their fact‑finding with labour‑law standards rather than invent procurement‑only definitions.
Ban on solicitation terms that fix workforce union status
Section 2 is the operative procurement prohibition. It covers both explicit demands (e.g., “contractor must be party to a collective agreement”) and indirect requirements framed as clauses that would in practice force a hiring outcome. The statutory phrase “has the effect of requiring” is broad and designed to catch indirect drafting, but it also imports uncertainty about borderline clauses — for example, requirements about health and safety training that correlate with union membership may be challenged as indirectly steering hires.
Prohibition on evaluation based on union status
This provision prevents contracting authorities from awarding any advantage or disqualification based on whether a vendor’s employees are unionized. Practically, evaluation templates, scoring sheets and procurement guidelines will need revision; procurement officers should keep contemporaneous records showing evaluation criteria were applied without reference to union status to reduce legal risk.
No payment of union dues/fees for non‑union workers
Section 4 stops public sector entities from making payments to unions on behalf of non‑unionized employees on a particular project. That targets arrangements where the Crown or another public body subsidized or facilitated parity payments to unions as part of a contracting model. Contractors using such mechanisms to equalize compensation between union and non‑union crews will lose that route when projects are publicly procured under this Act.
Blanket ban on agreements that impede compliance; Offence Act carve‑out
Section 5 bars entering agreements — including collective agreements — that would prevent the public sector entity from following the Act; that may prevent public bodies from consenting to PLAs or MOUs that include exclusivity clauses. Section 6 removes the application of a provision of the Offence Act; because the bill itself creates no separate penalties, this combination raises questions about how breaches will be remedied or enforced in practice.
Regulatory power to designate entities and fill gaps
The Lieutenant Governor in Council can designate additional entities as public sector entities and make regulations necessary to carry out the Act. That allows the government to expand the Act’s reach into Crown corporations or other bodies, and to add procedural specifics later — an administrative lever procurement teams must watch for.
Transitional rules and commencement
Section 8 exempts binding solicitations issued before commencement and section 9 leaves pre‑existing contracts intact; section 10 brings the Act into force on Royal Assent. Those carve‑outs create a clear non‑retroactivity rule but also incentivize public bodies to lock in solicitations before commencement if they want to preserve PLAs or similar arrangements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Non‑union contractors and employers that prefer to set their own staffing models — they gain protection from procurement clauses that would force union partnership on projects and preserve their ability to staff projects with their existing workforce.
- Non‑unionized employees who work on public projects — the bill prevents solicitations from requiring they pay fees to unions as a condition of working, preserving their freedom not to join and limiting imposed payments.
- Procurement teams and legal counsels that seek bright‑line neutrality — the statute supplies a clear rule to remove union‑status criteria from solicitations and evaluations, simplifying policy for agencies that want to avoid union‑related procurement risk.
Who Bears the Cost
- Trade unions and bargaining agents — the bill curtails the use of procurement to secure project labour agreements, preferred hiring, or check‑off arrangements that unions have used to organize and guarantee work on public projects.
- Contractors and project owners that rely on union hiring halls, collective bargaining frameworks or PLAs for staffing, training and predictable labour supply — they may face higher transaction costs redesigning staffing and onboarding processes.
- Public sector entities — procurement, legal and project teams must rewrite solicitation templates, retrain evaluators, and document compliance; if regulations expand the Act’s scope, additional administrative burdens will follow.
- Workers and training programs tied to union access — apprenticeships or training pipelines that depend on union placements for public projects could see disrupted intake on projects governed by the new procurement rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between procurement neutrality and the policy uses of procurement to achieve labour outcomes: the bill protects contractors’ and workers’ freedom from procurement‑driven union obligations, but it simultaneously undercuts collective strategies (like PLAs, hiring‑hall access, or negotiated check‑off arrangements) that unions and some employers use to secure worker protections, training pathways and stable project labour supply — a trade‑off with no administratively neat resolution.
The bill creates a strong procurement neutrality rule but leaves major implementation questions unanswered. Chief among them is enforcement: the Act removes the operation of section 5 of the Offence Act yet does not itself create an explicit penalty regime, civil remedy pathway, or administrative oversight mechanism.
That gap means compliance is likely to rest on administrative policy, contract remedies, judicial review, or labour‑law litigation rather than on a straightforward statutory enforcement tool.
Another practical tension is the bill’s broad language — especially the phrase “has the effect of requiring” — which invites legal challenge. Procurement clauses that reference collective agreements for reasons tied to quality, safety or certification might be vulnerable to interpretation as indirectly requiring unionized labour.
Likewise, the statutory cross‑reference to Labour Relations Code definitions avoids inventing new terminology but also imports the complexities of labour law into procurement disputes. Finally, the regulation power is broad: the Lieutenant Governor in Council can designate additional public entities and fill procedural gaps, meaning the Act’s actual footprint could expand by regulation and change operational obligations later on.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.