Bill 3 separates union levies into “principal” and “optional” amounts and ties key uses and changes to those labels to member approval and new transparency rules. It requires secret-ballot authorization for setting or changing principal dues and for employers to deduct optional dues; it also restricts what activities can be financed from principal versus optional dues and imposes annual financial disclosure and assurance obligations on associations and unions.
For employers, bargaining-unit members and labour organizations this rewrites the playbook for dues collection, internal governance and public finance reporting. The measures create new voting and document-delivery duties, audit/review thresholds, penalties for misuse of dues, and a set of transitional rules for dues already collected.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates that principal union dues may not be established or changed without a secret-ballot majority of bargaining-unit members who vote, requires secret-ballot authorization before optional dues may be deducted by employers, and restricts use of principal dues for specified legal or political interventions. It imposes annual financial statements and reports with review or audit requirements based on size, and sets fines for misuse of dues.
Who It Affects
Certified associations, representative associations and construction-industry associations in Québec; local unions, federations and confederations with Québec head offices; employers who remit dues; and bargaining‑unit employees who must receive notices and ballots. Small and large associations face different assurance obligations (review vs audit).
Why It Matters
The bill converts several internal governance practices into statutory obligations, shifting decision-making on dues to recurring member votes and creating standardized financial transparency across organizations. Compliance will require new administrative processes, and violations carry monetary penalties and limited penal-procedure access for employees.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill draws a firm line between two types of levies: principal dues (the baseline fees that fund ordinary union representational activity) and optional dues (the levies intended to pay for other specified activities). It requires associations to disclose to members, at an annual meeting, both the principal and optional portions and to send every represented employee a written document the day of that meeting explaining any optional dues and the right to vote on them.
Associations may not change the principal dues without a secret-ballot vote by a majority of the bargaining‑unit members who participate.
Voting mechanics are regulated: ballots must be secret, may not begin within 72 hours after the presentation to members, must take place within 30 days of that presentation, and each vote must remain open for at least 24 hours. Employers may only withhold optional dues if the employer has written authorization based on such a majority secret ballot.
Where optional dues are authorized, decisions take effect on the day of the presentation and apply to all unit employees, including future hires; newly hired employees must receive the explanatory document within 15 days of hire.On spending and reporting, the bill prohibits using principal dues to finance a specified set of activities — chiefly interventions or participation in civil/administrative/penal/criminal cases and political advertising or social-movement activity unrelated to collective bargaining or ordinary terms and conditions of employment — unless financed from optional dues. Associations and affiliated unions must prepare annual financial statements in accordance with GAAP: associations representing 50–199 employees require a review engagement; those representing 200+ require an audit.
Every association must also produce a yearly report on use of resources listing principal and optional amounts, officials’ remuneration and expenses, expenses over $5,000, and any expenses paid from optional dues; members can obtain copies free of charge.Enforcement is a mix of administrative criminal penalties: misuse of dues can trigger Chapter IX sanctions and a specific fine range of $5,000–$50,000 for contraventions of the restriction on spending optional or principal dues. For some penal proceedings, the bill limits instituting proceedings so that only an employee included in the bargaining unit may do so.
Finally, the bill contains transitional rules that allow existing expenditures and already-collected dues to be used under prior rules until members vote; associations must present proposed allocations and, within 30 days of that presentation, hold a secret ballot to continue using previously-deducted sums for activities newly designated as optional-only.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a secret-ballot majority of bargaining‑unit members who vote to establish or modify the amount of principal union dues (Labour Code s.20.1.1 and construction act s.97.3).
Optional dues must be presented at least once a year at a meeting and may be deducted by the employer only after a secret-ballot majority of members authorizes the deduction; ballots must open no sooner than 72 hours after presentation, occur within 30 days and remain open at least 24 hours (Labour Code s.47.0.2–.3).
Associations representing 50–199 employees must obtain a review engagement on annual financial statements; associations representing 200+ employees must obtain an audit engagement; federations and confederations affiliated with associations must have audited statements (Labour Code s.47.1 and s.47.1.1).
Annual resource-use reports must disclose principal and optional dues amounts, all expenses paid with optional dues, any expense over $5,000, and remuneration and official expenses of elected and senior officers, with free copies on request to members (Labour Code s.47.1.2).
Using principal dues (or using optional dues without authorization) to finance specified legal, political or social-movement activities triggers sanctions and a specific fine of $5,000–$50,000; certain penal proceedings may be brought only by an employee within the bargaining unit (Labour Code s.47.0.4; s.147; s.148).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Protections against intimidation at internal meetings and votes
The bill adds an explicit prohibition on using threats or intimidation against an employee who expresses dissent at a meeting or vote held by their certified association. Practically, that gives employees a statutory protection during internal governance events and creates a clear regulatory hook for complaints and enforcement when meetings or votes are contested.
Member-authorized principal dues and constitution/by-law content
These provisions require that principal dues be set or changed only after a secret-ballot majority of the bargaining‑unit members who vote. They also force associations to enshrine, review (no less frequently than every five years) and present constitutions or by‑laws at meetings, and to include specified procedural content — meeting notice rules, vote information, quorum, committees and officer roles. The government may fill gaps by regulation where constitutions are silent, so associations must track both statutory text and any forthcoming regulations when updating governance documents.
Limits on what principal dues can finance and annual financial assurance
The bill enumerates four categories of activity that, if financed by union levies, must be paid for exclusively from optional dues — mostly legal interventions unrelated to collective bargaining and political or social-movement campaigns on non-bargaining subjects. It requires annual GAAP financial statements, tiered assurance (review vs audit) tied to average headcount, and an annual report on use of funds with line items for optional-due expenditures and large expenses. Non-compliance with the financing rules triggers Chapter IX procedures; separate provisions create a $5,000–$50,000 fine for contraventions of the prohibition on improper use of dues.
New monetary penalties and limits on who may initiate penal proceedings
The bill adds a discrete penalty for contravening the restricted-spending rule (minimum $5,000, maximum $50,000) and limits the right to institute certain penal proceedings so that only an employee of the bargaining unit may start them. That both concentrates enforcement in unit members and reduces the pool of actors who can trigger criminal-style procedures, which will shape how disputes are litigated and which remedies are pursued first.
Mirrored regime for construction industry associations
The Act respecting labour relations, vocational training and workforce management in the construction industry receives parallel rules: optional vs principal assessments, presentation and ballots for advance deductions, constitution-review requirements, and identical reporting and assurance thresholds. The text also requires professional construction unions and non‑incorporated groups to hold secret-ballot votes for elections, strikes, collective agreement approvals and principal assessment changes, and to review constitutions at least every five years.
Transition rules for existing dues, timing and implementation windows
The bill permits ongoing activities and already-collected dues to be governed by prior rules until specified transition events (e.g., the closing of required ballots). Associations that wish to continue financing now-restricted activities with already-deducted sums must present allocations and within statutory windows hold the required secret ballots; approved sums must be placed into a separate fund and reported separately until exhausted. Several operative dates in the text are left as “date of assent” placeholders and certain governance provisions come into force six months after assent, which introduces implementation timing the government must specify.
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
- Bargaining‑unit employees — Gain statutory safeguards over how dues are set and spent, clearer information about where their money goes, a formal right to annual votes on optional deductions, and protection from intimidation in meetings. These provisions increase member control over financial decisions and provide free access to financial reports.
- Non‑union or newly hired employees in certified units — Receive specified documents about optional dues on presentation days and, upon hire, must be given the explanatory document within 15 days, improving transparency for newcomers and enabling informed consent or objection before optional deductions apply.
- Employers — Obtain a clearer statutory process for when they may lawfully deduct optional dues (a specific authorization based on a secret ballot) and a standardized timeline for that authorization, reducing legal ambiguity about payroll deduction obligations and potential employer liability for improper withholding.
Who Bears the Cost
- Certified associations, representative associations and unions — Face new recurring compliance costs (drafting and delivering notices and explanatory materials, organizing longer secret ballots, maintaining separate funds, preparing GAAP statements, paying for review or audit engagements, and producing annual reports). Smaller organizations may see these per‑member costs rise disproportionately.
- Unions’ central bodies (federations/confederations) — Must prepare audited statements and produce annual reports for affiliated associations; they will have to track, report and possibly reallocate funds received as optional or principal dues, increasing administrative workloads.
- Associations that use dues for litigation or political activity — Lose the ability to finance certain legal, political or social‑movement actions from principal dues and must secure explicit, recurring member authorization for optional‑funded activities, or face fines of $5,000–$50,000; they also risk penal proceedings initiated by unit employees.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: increasing individual members’ control, transparency and consent over dues and their uses versus preserving collective organizations’ ability to aggregate funds and act efficiently (including legal and political interventions) on behalf of members. Strengthening member votes and reporting reduces opaque spending but raises administrative burdens, increases compliance costs—disproportionately for smaller associations—and may constrain rapid collective action that some members expect their associations to undertake.
The bill tightens member control and reporting but leaves important definitional and operational gaps that require regulatory or administrative clarifications. “Directly concern the negotiation or application of a collective agreement” is the hinge phrase for whether an intervention may be paid from principal dues; disputes about that line will likely generate litigation or regulatory guidance because many employer‑state interactions sit near the boundary (e.g., public policy challenges with labour-law implications). The government’s power to fill silences in constitutions or by‑laws by regulation centralizes significant detail outside the statute, meaning associations must watch both primary law and regulatory rule‑making.
Operationally, the timing rules (presentation, 72‑hour delay, 30‑day window, minimum 24‑hour ballot) produce a predictable sequence but also require robust member-contact systems and secure voting platforms or physical arrangements. The transitional regime permits continued use of previously‑deducted funds for in‑progress activities but obliges associations to segregate approved sums into separate funds; that creates accounting and cash‑flow challenges and a potential arbitrage route where associations recharacterize expenditures to fit permitted categories.
Finally, enforcement is a hybrid: administrative penal provisions and new monetary fines sit alongside the requirement that some penal proceedings may be instituted only by a unit employee — concentrating enforcement power but potentially limiting public-interest prosecution or regulator‑initiated action.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.