This bill amends Nova Scotia's Trade Union Act to make it unlawful for employers — and persons acting on their behalf — to use any person, paid or unpaid, to perform work normally done by employees in a bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out. It also forbids reprisals (including dismissal, threats or other penalties) against people who refuse to perform that work, while preserving a narrow written‑agreement exception for specific safety‑related tasks.
The bill adds criminal and administrative enforcement tools: a summary conviction penalty of up to $100,000 per day for non‑compliance and a Governor‑in‑Council regulation‑making power to create an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) regime that will define violations, penalty ranges, review and recovery procedures, and delegated decision‑makers. The measures apply to the Crown in right of the Province as well as private employers, shifting both the risk calculus and the enforcement architecture for strikes in Nova Scotia.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts new subsections into s.53 of the Trade Union Act that bar employers and their agents from using anyone to replace workers in a striking or locked‑out bargaining unit and from punishing employees who refuse such work. It creates a summary conviction fine (up to $100,000 per day) and authorizes GIC to design an AMP scheme with rules on penalties, proof, delegation and appeals. Proceedings as an AMP or an offence are mutually exclusive.
Who It Affects
All provincially regulated employers in Nova Scotia — including the Crown and persons acting on employers' behalf — plus trade unions and bargaining units, temporary staffing firms, contractors and managers who might be used as replacements. Labour counsel, HR and compliance teams will handle new exposure and procedural requirements.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces reliance on labour‑relations remedies with high‑stakes monetary enforcement backed by both criminal and administrative routes, materially raising the cost of using replacement labour. The GIC’s forthcoming regulations will determine how the AMP scheme works in practice, so the bill's real-world effect depends heavily on regulatory design.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core change sits in new subsections added to section 53 of the Trade Union Act. During a strike or lockout, an employer and anyone acting for the employer may not employ — even for unpaid or volunteer work — a person to carry out the work that employees in the relevant bargaining unit usually perform.
The prohibition is broad on its face: it covers paid employees, contractors, volunteers and other agents whose work replaces striking or locked‑out employees. The bill also protects people who decline to perform that work from a narrow list of reprisals, including termination, threats, intimidation and other penalties.
The bill creates one explicit exception: the employer and the representative trade union may enter a written agreement that specifies particular tasks that may be performed during a disruption solely for preventing health or safety hazards. That carve‑out is limited to “specified work” and must be a documented agreement between the employer and the union representing the affected bargaining unit.On enforcement, the Act adds three new sections after s.85.
Section 85A makes non‑compliance an offence punishable on summary conviction by a monetary penalty of up to $100,000 for each day the contravention continues. Section 85B gives the Governor in Council a broad regulation‑making mandate to establish an administrative monetary penalty system: the regulations can designate which acts are violations, set penalty ranges by class of employer or person, set factors for imposing penalties, prescribe payment and collection rules (including treating unpaid AMPs as recoverable debts), outline evidentiary standards, delegate powers to the Board or other persons, and create procedures for commencing, defending and reviewing AMP orders.
Section 85C ensures that the same act cannot be pursued both as an AMP and as a criminal offence.The bill also amends an existing cross‑reference in s.4(3) so the new subsections are incorporated into the Act’s enforcement framework. Taken together, the statutory change and the regulatory authority create two parallel enforcement paths — criminal prosecution and an administrative penalty regime — while leaving the operational boundary (what counts as the unit’s ordinary work, who is a person acting for an employer, and how narrow the safety exception is) to be determined in practice through regulations, labour disputes and litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies the new prohibitions to the Crown in right of Nova Scotia as well as to private employers and anyone acting on their behalf.
It bars using “a person, whether paid or unpaid” to perform work ordinarily done by an employee in a bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out — language broad enough to cover volunteers, contractors and managers used as replacements.
It makes it an offence on summary conviction to breach the prohibitions, with a maximum monetary penalty of $100,000 for each day the breach continues.
Subsections (4) and (5) contain a narrow, written‑agreement exception that allows only specifically enumerated work — agreed in writing between employer and the union — to be carried out during a strike or lockout for the purpose of preventing health and safety hazards.
The Governor in Council may create an administrative monetary penalty system that sets designated violations, penalty ranges, delegation and recovery mechanisms; the law bars pursuing the same conduct both as an AMP and as a criminal offence.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Bring the new strike provisions into the Act's enforcement framework
This is a technical amendment to the Act's cross‑references. By inserting the new subsections into the list in s.4(3), the bill ensures the added strike‑integrity provisions are treated alongside other enforceable sections of the Trade Union Act. Practically, it means those provisions are not orphaned: they integrate with existing enforcement and regulatory mechanics and signal that the legislature intends them to carry comparable statutory weight.
Substantive prohibitions and the safety exception
Subsection (4) establishes the central prohibition: during a strike or lockout, employers and their agents may not use any person to do work normally performed by the affected bargaining unit. Subsection (5) forbids reprisals against people who refuse to perform that work, listing refusal to employ, threats and coercion as examples. Subsection (6) carves out a narrow exception: the employer and the trade union can agree in writing on clearly specified tasks that can be performed during a stoppage for the sole purpose of preventing health or safety hazards. The mechanics matter: the written agreement requirement and the limited purpose create a constrained route for continuity of safety‑critical functions, but they also set up a likely flashpoint over what qualifies as “specified work” and who may lawfully perform it.
Penalties, administrative scheme and mutually exclusive proceedings
Section 85A imposes a high daily penalty on summary conviction for breaches of s.53(4) or (5). Section 85B hands the Governor in Council broad authority to make regulations that will define the AMP regime in granular detail: which acts are violations, penalty ranges by employer class, mitigation factors, payment and collection rules (including recovery as a debt), evidentiary standards, delegation of decision‑making to the Board or designees, and review/appeal processes. Section 85C closes off double proceedings by specifying that pursuing the same act as an AMP prevents criminal prosecution for it. The sequence puts heavy practical importance on the forthcoming regulations and on how enforcement bodies use delegated powers.
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
- Unionized employees in provincial bargaining units — the prohibition on replacement labour and anti‑reprisal protection strengthens their ability to sustain collective action without immediate undermining by replacements.
- Trade unions representing bargaining units — they gain bargaining leverage and a clear statutory avenue to negotiate narrow, written arrangements for safety‑critical tasks rather than face unilateral employer decisions.
- Employees who are asked to cross picket lines — the bill gives them explicit statutory protection against dismissal, threats and coercion for refusing to perform unit work during a stoppage.
- Public and workplace safety interests — by allowing a written safety‑only exception, the bill preserves a route to maintain critical health and safety tasks during a disruption without broadly permitting replacement labour.
Who Bears the Cost
- Provincial employers, including the Crown — they face potential daily fines up to $100,000 on summary conviction and exposure to AMPs once the regulations are in force, increasing compliance, legal and operational costs.
- Temporary staffing firms, contractors and individuals who might otherwise perform replacement work — they lose a revenue stream and may also face liability if the work is treated as breaching the Act.
- Provincial government bodies (Board and regulatory staff) — the GIC’s delegation and AMP scheme will create design and administrative burdens on the Board or delegated decision‑makers, including creating procedures, adjudicating disputes and collecting penalties.
- Employers’ legal and HR teams — they will incur new compliance costs drafting written safety agreements, reworking contingency plans and defending AMP notices or prosecutions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting the integrity of collective action versus preserving employers’ ability to maintain essential operations and protect health and safety: the bill tightens protections for striking workers by imposing heavy monetary consequences, but that strength comes at the cost of reduced managerial flexibility, potential over‑criminalization of industrial disputes, and reliance on delegated administrative processes whose fairness and contours will be decided after passage.
The bill leaves several consequential implementation questions unresolved. First, key terms are open: the statute does not define what constitutes “work ordinarily done” by a bargaining unit or who counts as a person “acting on behalf of an employer.” Those gaps invite litigation and fact‑specific disputes in every close case (e.g., whether a manager filling in, an independent contractor, or a volunteer is a prohibited replacement).
Second, the written‑agreement safety carve‑out is narrow in text but broad in potential consequence: employers and unions could bargain wide lists of tasks to keep operations running, or conversely weaponize the exception as a bargaining lever. The line between permissible safety work and impermissible replacement work will be litigated.
The enforcement design presents trade‑offs. The province gives itself both a criminal tool with very large per‑day fines and a delegated administrative regime, but the bill delegates almost all of the AMP architecture to regulation.
That raises due‑process concerns (who makes decisions, evidentiary standards, appeal routes) and creates uncertainty until the regulations and the Board’s procedures are published. The exclusivity rule (proceeding as an AMP precludes an offence) prevents double punishment but leaves open strategic choices by enforcement authorities about which route to pursue.
Finally, applying the law to the Crown creates practical and political questions about enforcement against government entities and their employees that will require protocol and perhaps separate administrative arrangements.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.