Bill 96 amends the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to reintroduce detailed prohibitions on employers using replacement workers during lawful strikes and lockouts. It broadly bars use of employees or contractors hired after notice to bargain (or after bargaining begins), limits transfer of staff into strike locations, and forbids coercion of non‑bargaining unit employees to perform striking work.
The bill also enumerates narrowly defined permitted uses of replacement workers — mainly for custody, residential care, emergency medical and dispatch services, and to prevent danger to life, serious equipment damage, or environmental harm — and creates procedural safeguards: notice to the union, a right for the union to offer bargaining‑unit employees instead, Board determinations, and reinstatement and benefit continuity rules. These changes reshape bargaining leverage, impose operational limits on employers in care and emergency sectors, and shift evidentiary burdens in enforcement proceedings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits employers from using replacement workers during lawful strikes or lockouts, including newly hired staff, transferred employees and contractors, except where limited, enumerated public‑safety or care services must be maintained. It requires employers to notify unions before using specified replacements, lets unions offer bargaining‑unit workers instead, and gives the Ontario Labour Relations Board authority to decide or review whether exceptions apply.
Who It Affects
Employers and employers’ organizations across Ontario — especially in corrections, residential care, child protection, emergency dispatch, ambulance and crisis shelters — plus unions representing affected bargaining units, staffing agencies that supply temporary workers, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board and courts tasked with dispute resolution and enforcement.
Why It Matters
The bill restores strong anti‑replacement protections that materially increase unions’ leverage in strikes and limit employers’ contingency options, while creating operational constraints for sectors that deliver public safety and vulnerable‑person care. It also reallocates litigation burdens and establishes explicit reinstatement and benefit continuation rules that affect post‑strike workforce composition and costs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 96 adds a new set of sections to the Labour Relations Act that together reinstate the detailed anti‑replacement regime Ontario had prior to 1995. The statute defines key terms, sets out when the rules apply (a strike authorized by a lawful vote of at least 60 percent and lockouts), and then imposes broad prohibitions: employers cannot use the services of bargaining‑unit members on strike or lockout, cannot hire or engage people after notice to bargain to perform striking work, and cannot transfer workers from other sites or use contractors to take over striking work.
The text also explicitly protects employees who refuse to perform replacement work from reprisals.
Recognizing that some services cannot be abandoned without risking life, safety or serious institutional harm, the bill enumerates narrow permitted uses of specified replacement workers. These exceptions are limited to particular functions — custody and detention, residential care for people with disabilities or children in need of protection, services that let such people live outside facilities, emergency shelters and crisis intervention for victims, certain dispatch and ambulance services, and immediate measures to prevent danger to life, serious equipment destruction or environmental damage.
Even in these circumstances, the employer must notify the union, allow the union to supply or offer willing bargaining‑unit employees, and where disagreement exists either party can apply to the Labour Relations Board for directions.The bill also governs what happens when the work stops: striking or locked‑out employees are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions, with a priority to displace replacement workers who performed bargaining‑unit work — subject to limited seniority exceptions and start‑up needs. For benefit continuity, unions may tender payments to keep employment benefits (other than pensions) in force and employers must accept and act on those payments.
Procedurally, the bill shifts burdens: employers must prove they complied with the prohibitions where challenged, while a party asserting an exception (that replacement use was necessary) bears the burden to show the exception applies in Board proceedings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes the anti‑replacement rules apply only to strikes authorized by a vote where at least 60% of those voting approved the strike, and to any lockout.
Employers may not use persons hired or engaged after the earlier of the notice to bargain or the start of bargaining to perform the work of striking or locked‑out employees.
Specified replacement workers may be used only for a closed list of services (custody/detention, residential care for vulnerable people, child‑protection services, emergency shelters/crisis services, emergency dispatch/ambulance/first aid, or to avert danger to life, serious equipment/premises damage or environmental harm).
Employers must notify the union with particulars before using specified replacements, must give the union a reasonable opportunity to offer willing bargaining‑unit employees, and may, in emergencies, proceed only for the time needed to notify and seek consent.
The employer bears the burden of proving compliance when alleged to have acted contrary to the replacement prohibition, while a party relying on an exception must prove the exception’s circumstances in applications to the Board.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions, scope and application
This opening cluster defines who counts as an employer or 'person' (including managers and independent contractors), what a 'place of operations' is, and when the anti‑replacement rules apply — notably linking application to a lawful strike that meets specific authorization conditions (a vote conducted under the Act with at least 60% in favour) or any lockout. For employers and unions this is the gatekeeper: if a strike vote doesn’t meet the statutory test, the prohibition does not attach.
Core prohibitions and worker protections
These provisions set the operational prohibitions: the employer cannot use services of bargaining‑unit employees who are on strike/locked out, cannot compel other employees at the site to do striking work without agreement, and cannot hire new staff after notice to bargain to perform that work. They also forbid reprisals against employees who refuse to perform replacement work and place the evidentiary burden on the employer in complaints alleging non‑compliance — a significant procedural advantage for unions in enforcement proceedings.
Enumerated exceptions, notice, union consent and Board review
Section 73.2 creates the limited carve‑outs allowing 'specified replacement workers' to perform striking work but only to the extent necessary for enumerated public‑safety and care services or to prevent danger, destruction or environmental harm. It requires detailed notice to the union of the type, level and number of replacements, permits the union to offer bargaining‑unit staff instead, and lets the employer use replacements in immediate emergencies only for the time needed to notify the union. Crucially, either party can apply to the Labour Relations Board to decide whether the exception applies and to set limits on replacement use; the Board can reconsider or defer proceedings. Parties may negotiate written agreements that supersede some subsections, but such agreements can’t be used to bind future strikes.
Reinstatement, displacement and seniority rules
This section mandates reinstatement of striking or locked‑out employees to their former positions unless parties agree otherwise. It gives returning employees a right to displace replacement workers who performed bargaining‑unit work during the dispute, subject to a seniority exception for bargaining‑unit employees who worked under the exceptions and whose service is greater. If work is insufficient, reinstatement follows recall provisions in the collective agreement or, absent them, length of service. A narrow startup exception allows temporary non‑reinstatement where employees cannot perform required start‑up work.
Continuation of employment benefits
Section 73.4 lets unions tender payments to keep non‑pension employment benefits (including insurance coverage) active during strikes or lockouts; employers must accept those payments and continue coverage. The provision prohibits cancellation or denial of benefits where the union has tended sufficient payments, and applies even if contracts say otherwise. Operationally, this creates an administrative interaction between unions, employers and benefit carriers during labour disruptions and limits employers’ leverage through benefit withdrawal.
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
- Striking and locked‑out employees — the bill strengthens their bargaining power by closing the employer’s ability to replace them at struck locations, gives reinstatement priority over replacement hires, and protects non‑participating staff from reprisals.
- Unions representing affected bargaining units — the strict prohibitions and the employer’s burden of proof in complaints make enforcement and deterrence of unlawful replacement use more practicable, and the notice/consent structure gives unions an active role when limited replacements are proposed.
- Residents, clients and victims in regulated care and emergency services — the statute’s narrow exception list is designed to ensure continuity of critical services while keeping replacement use constrained, reducing the chance that vulnerable persons will lose essential support during labour disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers in sectors providing listed services (corrections, residential care, child protection, ambulance/dispatch, shelters) — they face operational limits on contingency staffing, new notice and administrative obligations, and potential exposure to Board applications and enforcement actions.
- Temporary staffing agencies and contractors — the ban curtails demand for post‑notice placements into striking positions and may reduce revenue opportunities during disputes.
- Employers’ organizations and legal departments — the shift of evidentiary burden and the potential for Board litigation increases compliance and legal costs, including preparing urgent evidence to justify any permitted replacement use.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the public interest in uninterrupted delivery of essential and emergency services against the principle of protecting strike effectiveness: it tightens worker protections to preserve bargaining power, but doing so imposes potentially significant costs and legal uncertainty on employers tasked with maintaining public safety, care continuity and business operations during labour disputes.
The bill recreates a detailed regulatory regime that forces hard choices about how employers staff during labour stoppages. One persistent implementation challenge is the text’s reliance on categorical lists and fact‑sensitive determinations: deciding whether particular work “enables” residential care or whether machinery faces 'serious deterioration' will generate contested Board proceedings.
That produces operational uncertainty, particularly for multi‑site employers who must decide in real time whether transfers or temporary hires would breach the prohibition.
Another trade‑off concerns administrative and evidentiary burdens. The employer‑facing burden of proof on compliance strengthens enforcement but also raises the likelihood of urgent, resource‑intensive Board applications.
The clauses allowing written agreements between parties introduce flexibility, but the ban on locking in future replacement arrangements preserves the statute’s protective intent while limiting long‑term employer planning. Finally, the definition sweep (managers, independent contractors, persons 'working at another place') may produce disputes over who qualifies as a prohibited replacement, creating litigation risk and operational ambiguity for employers and labour counsel.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.