Bill 104 amends the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to streamline dispute resolution between fishers and processors and to limit certain forms of industrial action. It gives the Standing Fish Price‑Setting Panel explicit duties to set prices and conditions where parties jointly refer unresolved bargaining, makes those panel decisions final and binding on all processors who handle that species, and shortens several statutory timelines for conciliation and arbitration.
The act also restricts strikes and lockouts once a referral to the panel has been made, creates summary‑offence penalties for secondary persuasion (efforts to stop others doing business with a processor), and imports most of Parts V and VI of the Labour Relations Act into the fishing context with targeted terminology and timeline changes. For compliance officers and industry counsel, the bill shifts leverage away from traditional industrial action toward expedited administrative decision‑making and increases the need for rapid legal and bargaining responses ahead of fishing seasons.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes parties to jointly refer price-and-sale disputes to the Standing Fish Price‑Setting Panel, requires the panel to decide using ministerial regulations and to notify parties shortly before season opens, and makes those decisions final and binding as collective agreements. It shortens conciliation/arbitration timelines and allows a single arbitrator with a seven‑day decision deadline.
Who It Affects
Certified bargaining agents, processors and processors' organizations that handle particular fish species, individual fishers covered by bargaining units, the Standing Fish Price‑Setting Panel and the provincial minister responsible for fisheries. It also affects third parties in the supply chain who may be targets of secondary persuasion.
Why It Matters
By converting some unresolved bargaining to an administratively imposed, binding price regime and tightening timelines, the bill reduces the window for strikes or lockouts and concentrates dispute resolution into the panel and expedited arbitration. That matters for seasonal planning, bargaining strategy, compliance risk and enforcement priorities across the fishing sector.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 104 retools how fishers and processors resolve disagreements over price and conditions of sale. Where bargaining fails, the parties can jointly refer disputes to the Standing Fish Price‑Setting Panel.
The panel must hold a hearing, consider submissions from both the bargaining agent and processors, and decide the disputed matters in a manner set out by regulation. The panel’s decision must be given before the applicable fishing season opens and is declared final and binding on the parties and on every processor in the province who processes that species; the decision operates as a collective agreement or part of one.
The act changes the post‑bargaining freeze that prevents processors from altering pay or purchase terms while a process is underway: a processor cannot change rates or terms without fisher consent until either a binding collective agreement is in place, a conciliation officer or board has acted and statutory waiting periods have run, or a conciliation board report has been issued and its seven‑day follow‑up period has passed. The bill also replaces various procedural references (Trial Division becomes Supreme Court) and repeals several obsolete sections, consolidating the panel referral process as the principal backstop to bargaining impasse.To speed outcomes the bill imports most of Parts V and VI of the Labour Relations Act into the fishing context, but with substitutions — trade unions become “associations,” employers become “processors,” employees become “fishers” — and with compressed timeframes (several 14‑ and 15‑day intervals are shortened to 10 or 7 days).
The minister must appoint a single arbitrator upon request; that arbitrator has the same powers as an arbitration board and must issue a decision within seven days unless parties agree otherwise.On industrial action, the bill curtails options once parties refer a dispute to the panel: fishers and their bargaining agents are prohibited from conducting votes on cessations of business dealings, from authorizing cessations, or from declaring them; processors and processors' organizations are prohibited from locking out fishers in that situation. The statute also adds a package of limits and penalties around secondary persuasion: during unlawful persuasion activity, associations and individuals may face summary fines (up to $1,000 for organizations, $500 and possible brief imprisonment for individuals), while peaceful expressions of support through media channels are explicitly not penalized.Finally, the minister has regulatory authority to set the method the panel uses to make decisions and to further detail the panel’s powers and duties.
The bill comes into force by proclamation, so timing will depend on executive direction rather than automatic commencement on royal assent.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Standing Fish Price‑Setting Panel’s decision is final, must be issued before the opening of the relevant fishing season, and constitutes a collective agreement binding on all processors who process that species in the province.
Parties may jointly refer unresolved price-and-conditions disputes to the panel provided the statutory 7‑day post‑conciliation period (as modified) has not run; the panel will hold a hearing and decide under methods set by regulation.
When a dispute has been referred to the panel, fishers and their bargaining agents are barred from voting for or authorizing cessations of business dealings and processors are barred from locking out fishers.
Most of Parts V and VI of the Labour Relations Act apply to matters under this Act with terminology substitutions (trade union→association, employer→processor, employee→fisher) and shortened statutory response periods (selected 14/15‑day windows replaced with 10‑ and 7‑day deadlines).
The Act creates a summary‑offence regime for secondary persuasion: associations can face fines up to $1,000; individuals can face fines up to $500 and up to three months’ imprisonment in default of payment, while non‑picket public expressions of support by third parties are expressly protected.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New definition for conciliation board
The Act adds a precise definition of “conciliation board” by reference to section 100 of the Labour Relations Act. That pulls the fishing‑sector conciliation structures directly into the Labour Relations Act framework and ensures later cross‑references to conciliation officers and boards have statutory clarity.
Freeze on altering rates during bargaining and renewals
These amendments tighten the rule that processors cannot change rates or purchase terms without fisher consent while collective bargaining is unresolved or during the run‑out period after an agreement expires. The freeze now runs until the earliest of (i) a binding collective agreement for all processors handling the species, (ii) a conciliation officer has reported and seven days have passed without the appointment of a conciliation board, or (iii) a conciliation board has reported and seven days have passed after that report. Practically, processors lose flexibility to unilaterally alter prices during these compressed windows, and both sides have stronger incentives to engage in conciliation or refer matters promptly.
Expanded panel duties and voluntary referral mechanism
The bill clarifies the panel’s statutory duties: it must facilitate access to market information, set prices and sale conditions when parties refer disputes, and consider ministerial referrals on related matters. Parties can jointly refer all disputed matters on price and conditions to the panel if bargaining has failed and specified post‑conciliation timeframes have not expired. The panel must hold hearings, decide under regulatory methods, and notify parties no later than three days before the fishing season opening date, creating a strict timeline tied to seasonal operations.
Prohibition on strikes and lockouts after panel referral
This provision expressly bars fishers and bargaining agents from voting on or authorizing cessations of business dealings and bars processors from locking out fishers where a matter has been referred to the panel. The clause removes industrial action as leverage once the panel process is engaged, making the referral path the exclusive route for resolution in those circumstances.
Single arbitrator with expedited deadline
On request, the minister must appoint a single arbitrator whose powers mirror those of an arbitration board under the Labour Relations Act. The arbitrator must render a decision within seven days of appointment unless the parties agree to a different timetable, compressing traditional arbitration timelines and favoring quick resolution ahead of seasonal activity.
Rules and penalties on persuasion and secondary boycott
The Act allows participants in a legitimate cessation or locked‑out association to persuade third parties to stay away from a processor’s business in limited contexts, but otherwise criminalizes or penalizes persuasion intended to stop others from dealing with a processor. The statutory scheme distinguishes peaceful public expressions (protected) from coordinated efforts to impede business, and sets summary fines: up to $1,000 for organizations and up to $500 (plus possible short imprisonment for default) for individuals, creating an enforcement tool against secondary boycotts.
Incorporation of Labour Relations Act Parts V and VI with substitutions
The Act imports Parts V and VI of the Labour Relations Act (except section 120) into the fishing‑sector regime but replaces key terms — e.g., trade union→association, employer→processor, employee→fisher — and shortens response periods (selected 14‑day intervals become 10 days; selected 15‑day intervals become 7 days). This mechanically aligns fishing disputes with established labour procedures while compressing timelines to meet the seasonal calendar.
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
- Processors (large and province‑wide): Receive uniform, binding panel decisions that impose a single price/terms across all processors who handle a species, reducing competitive undercutting and providing seasonal pricing certainty.
- Fishers and bargaining agents seeking expedited resolution: Gain access to an administratively enforceable decision‑making route and faster arbitration/conciliation timelines that can deliver outcomes before season opens, preserving earnings certainty.
- Supply chain actors (wholesalers, retailers): Benefit from reduced risk of disruptive strikes or lockouts during peak seasonal windows because the bill narrows windows for industrial action and ties resolution to the panel/arbitration processes.
- Minister and regulatory staff: Obtain clearer statutory authority to prescribe panel methodology and leverage to manage seasonal bargaining bottlenecks, simplifying administrative oversight of price disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Processors (particularly small or specialized processors): May be forced to accept provincially binding prices that do not reflect their particular cost structures, losing flexibility to negotiate different terms or to differentiate competitively.
- Bargaining agents and fishers as a group: Lose some leverage when they choose panel referral because the bill removes the option of strike/lockout as bargaining leverage in those instances and shifts bargaining power toward binding administrative determination.
- Associations and advocacy groups outside direct bargaining parties: Face exposure to summary fines for secondary persuasion, creating legal risk for coordinated public pressure campaigns and complicating broader public advocacy strategies.
- Ministry of Fisheries and the panel: Face implementation and resource demands to run hearings on tight timelines, produce decisions in advance of seasons, and develop regulations specifying panel decision methods; those costs may require budgetary reallocations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preserving seasonal market stability and maintaining meaningful collective bargaining leverage: the bill reduces the threat of strikes and lockouts by substituting fast, binding administrative decisions, which stabilizes supply chains but simultaneously strips parties—especially fishers and their bargaining agents—of traditional industrial tools that provide negotiating leverage to secure better terms.
The bill reconciles seasonal commercial pressures with collective bargaining by channeling disputes into an expedited administrative track, but that solution raises several implementation puzzles. First, making panel decisions final and binding on all processors replaces negotiated, locally tailored settlements with a one‑size‑fits‑all price outcome; the statute delegates the panel’s analytic method to regulation, but how that method will account for heterogenous cost structures across processors is unresolved and likely to be litigated in contested cases.
Second, by compressing multiple statutory deadlines (14/15-day windows to 10/7 days) and imposing a seven‑day arbitration decision deadline, the regime risks producing compressed hearings that favor the better‑resourced party or those with rapid access to legal counsel and economists.
Enforcement of the secondary‑persuasion rules presents a further tension. The statute protects non‑picket public expressions of support but criminalizes coordinated persuasion to disrupt business relationships; drawing that line in practice is fact‑specific and could chill legitimate community advocacy or supplier decisions.
Finally, importing Parts V and VI of the Labour Relations Act with textual substitutions makes sense procedurally but may create statutory friction where Labour Relations Act provisions assume firm/employee relationships that do not map neatly onto seasonal, owner‑operator, or self‑employed fishers. The act’s reliance on proclamation for commencement gives the executive latitude to schedule implementation, but it also delays clarity about transitional arrangements and resourcing for the panel and ministry.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.