Union's Strike Declaration Found Unlawful by Canada Industrial Relations Board

Reasons for decision Hay River Health and Social Services Authority , applicant, and Public Service Alliance of Canada, respondent . Board File: 036997-C Neutral Citation: 2026 [NAME] 1220 January 9, 2026 The panel of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board) was composed of [NAME], Chairperson, sitting alone pursuant to section 14(3) of the Canada Labour Code (the Code ). Counsel of [NAME], for the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority; [NAME], for the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

I. Background [ 1 ] On September 14, 2023, the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority (the employer) filed an application pursuant to section 91(1) of the Code , seeking a declaration of unlawful strike against the Public Service Alliance of Canada (the union) and alleging violations of sections 87.2, 87.3 and 89(1)(f) of the Code . The Board received written submissions from the union on September 17, 2023, and reply submissions from the employer on September 19, 2023. [ 2 ] Given the nature of the application, the Board provided the parties with a bottom-line decision on September 22, 2023 (see Hay River Health and Social Services Authority , 2023 [NAME] LD 5137). The Board determined that the union had unlawfully declared a strike when it issued its strike declaration on September 8, 2023. The Board notes that, following its decision in Hay River Health and Social Services Authority (LD 5137), the union immediately revoked its declaration and informed its members accordingly. [ 3 ] These are the detailed reasons for the Board’s decision.

II. Facts [ 4 ] The following is a summary of the key facts and chronology of events leading to the filing of the application. [ 5 ] The employer is an integrated health authority providing medical, health and wellness services to Hay River and six surrounding communities, serving a population of approximately 6,000 people. [ 6 ] The union represents a unit of approximately 200 employees working for the employer. The relevant collective agreement between the employer and the union was effective from April 1, 2016, and expired on March 31, 2021. Negotiations for its renewal began in April 2022 and consisted of multiple rounds of bargaining, both in person and virtually. [ 7 ] In accordance with the provisions of the Code , the union filed for conciliation on February 14, 2023, and two conciliation officers were appointed. Conciliation meetings were held in June 2023, but no agreement was reached. The statutory conciliation period ended on July 28, 2023, as agreed between the parties. [ 8 ] The union held a strike vote on both June 28 and July 11, 2023, with members of the bargaining unit voting in favour of strike action. In the union’s view, the strike vote was valid until September 9, 2023. [ 9 ] On August 13, 2023, Hay River residents were evacuated due to wildfires. Given these circumstances, the union proposed a protocol agreement that would have avoided a strike or lockout during the evacuation. The union also asked the employer to agree to extend the validity of the strike vote. The employer did not agree to the protocol agreement. [ 10 ] On September 8, 2023, the union issued a strike declaration letter stating that strike action would commence at a date and time to be determined. The letter states the following: By this letter and in accordance with subsection 87.3(1) of the Canada Labour Code , the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) now declares a strike of the above-noted bargaining unit, with immediate effect. This strike will continue and will not end until one of the following events occurs: a) the parties have reached and ratified a new Collective Agreement; or b) the Union provides a written communication to the Employer expressly advising that the strike is at an end. No events, no conduct of the Union or employees, and no other communications of the Union will bring the strike to an end. The strike will be brought to an end only by the means set out above. Unless a lawful lockout by the Employer has occurred, strike action will commence at a date and time to be identified by the Union in a 72-hour strike notice that will be served upon the Employer as required by s.87.2 of the Canada Labour Code , at a time of the Union’s choosing. [ 11 ] In a letter dated September 11, 2023, the employer communicated to the union that it considered the declaration invalid. When the union responded, maintaining that its strike declaration was compliant with the Code , the employer filed the present application.

III. Positions of the Parties A. The Employer [ 12 ] The employer argues that the union unlawfully declared a strike on September 8, 2023, because it failed to comply with the statutory preconditions for a lawful strike set out in sections 87.2 , 87.3 and 89(1)(f) of the Code . The core of the employer’s position is that a union cannot lawfully “declare or authorize a strike” unless it has both (1) conducted a valid strike vote within the preceding 60 days and (2) issued a strike notice that identifies the specific date on which the strike will occur. According to the employer, both these requirements must be satisfied within the same 60-day period. The union’s letter of September 8, 2023, expressly stated that it was not a strike notice and did not specify a strike date. In the employer’s view, it cannot constitute a valid strike declaration. [ 13 ] The employer further submits that, even if the September 8, 2023, letter could be considered a valid declaration, the union’s strike vote had already expired. The vote occurred over two days—June 28 and July 11, 2023—but the employer argues that the 60-day validity window runs from the first day of voting, not the last. On that basis, the strike vote expired on August 27, 2023, before the union issued its purported declaration. The employer argues that allowing the 60-day period to run from the last voting day only would permit [NAME] to stretch strike votes over long periods, undermining the statutory purpose of ensuring that a strike mandate reflects the current will of the members in the bargaining unit. [ 14 ] Relying on the principles of statutory interpretation, the Board’s decision in [COMPANY] , 2005 [NAME] 322 ( CN 322 ), and the [NAME] ( Seeking a Balance: Canada Labour Code, Part I , Review (Ottawa: [NAME], 1995) , the employer argues that [NAME] intended for the 72-hour strike notice requirement and the 60‑day strike vote requirement to function as overlapping preconditions, ensuring a timely, orderly and transparent escalation toward a lawful strike. The union’s attempt to separate “authorization” or “declaration” from a valid strike notice is, in the employer’s view, inconsistent with the Code ’s text and purpose, as well as the union’s own conduct, including its repeated requests for a strike-vote extension and the fact that it sent the declaration to the Minister of Labour (which is only required for a strike notice). [ 15 ] Since the union declared a strike without issuing a valid strike notice and after its strike vote had lapsed, the employer asks the Board to declare the action unlawful, order the union to revoke its declaration, enjoin employees from participating in strike activity and require the union’s leaders to notify members accordingly. B. The Union [ 16 ] The union argues that the employer’s application for a declaration of unlawful strike should be dismissed in its entirety. It maintains that it fully complied with all the requirements of the Code when it authorized and declared a strike on September 8, 2023. According to the union, the employer wrongly claims that the union was required to issue a 72-hour strike notice within the 60-day period following its positive strike vote. It argues that this interpretation is inconsistent with the structure of the Code , which treats a strike authorization or declaration and the issuance of a strike notice as two legally distinct steps. [ 17 ] The union emphasizes that the Code ’s 60-day time limit applies only to the union’s internal decision to authorize or declare a strike (see section 87.3 of the Code ). The requirement to issue a 72-hour notice to the employer (see section 87.2 of the Code ) arises only when the union intends to begin strike action. The union asserts that the employer is improperly conflating these two concepts and overlooking the Board’s case law holding that the authorization or declaration of a strike and the strike notice serve different purposes. The union argues that the employer’s interpretation would create an absurd outcome by forcing [NAME] to issue strike notices immediately upon authorizing a strike, even when they have no intention to begin strike action. [ 18 ] The union further argues that the September 8, 2023, authorization and declaration occurred within the period of a valid strike vote. It rejects the employer’s claim that the 60-day period began when voting opened on June 28, 2023, rather than when it concluded on July 11, 2023. The union maintains that the Code clearly ties the mandate to receiving the results of the vote, not the start of voting, and that its two-day voting period ensured members had a reasonable opportunity to participate, as required by law. Further, the union states that the employer had a statutory window to challenge the conduct of the vote if it objected, but it did not do so. [ 19 ] Finally, the union states that its conduct has been prudent and transparent, particularly given the wildfire evacuation and disruption in Hay River, and that there is no basis for suggesting that it has attempted to improperly extend or preserve its strike mandate. It notes that it has continued to bargain, complied with all procedural obligations and made good-faith efforts to avoid unnecessary disruption.

For these reasons, it submits that the employer’s application should be dismissed and that its strike authorization and declaration should be recognized as lawful.

IV. Analysis and Decision [ 20 ] The issue before the Board is whether the strike declaration communicated by the union on September 8, 2023, met the requirements of the Code . [ 21 ] The Code sets out certain conditions that must be met prior to the union exercising its right to strike or the employer exercising its right to lockout. First, section 87.2 establishes the requirement for a 72-hour notice: 87.2 (1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has occurred, a [NAME] must give notice to the employer, at least seventy-two hours in advance, indicating the date on which a strike will occur, and must provide a copy of the notice to the Minister. (2) Unless a strike not prohibited by this Part has occurred, an employer must give notice to the [NAME], at least seventy-two hours in advance, indicating the date on which a lockout will occur, and must provide a copy of the notice to the Minister. (3) Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, where no strike or lockout occurs on the date indicated in a notice given pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), a new notice of at least seventy-two hours must be given by the [NAME] or the employer if they wish to initiate a strike or lockout. [ 22 ] Further, the union must also have held a secret ballot vote as set out in section 87.3(1) of the Code : 87.3 (1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has occurred, a [NAME] may not declare or authorize a strike unless it has, within the previous sixty days, or any longer period that may be agreed to in writing by the [NAME] and the employer, held a secret ballot vote among the employees in the unit and received the approval of the majority of the employees who voted. [ 23 ] Section 89 of the Code makes clear that both these requirements must be met prior to exercising the right to strike: 89 (1) No employer shall declare or cause a lockout and no [NAME] shall declare or authorize a strike unless … (f) sections 87.2 and 87.3 have been complied with. [ 24 ] In its letter, the union purports to declare a strike pursuant to section 87.3 of the Code but indicates that it will provide its 72-hour notice to the employer of the date and time of its strike activity in the future. [ 25 ] The employer argues that the union’s strike declaration was invalid as it did not comply with sections 87.2, 87.3 and 89(1)(f) of the Code . Specifically, the union failed to provide a valid strike notice within the required 60-day period following the strike vote. [ 26 ] It is well established that in interpreting these Code provisions, the Board must be guided by the modern principles of statutory interpretation, which require it to read the statutory language in its entire context and within the scheme of the Code and its purpose, while discerning the intention of [NAME]. [ 27 ] The introductory language in section 89(1) of the Code makes clear that a union cannot “declare or authorize a strike” unless certain requirements are met. One of those requirements set out in section 89(1)(f) is that the union must have complied with sections 87.2 and 87.3 of the Code . There is no ambiguity in this language; to declare a strike, the union must comply with both requirements of a 72-hour notice and a valid strike vote. Each requirement serves a different purpose. The union cannot purport to declare a strike without providing a 72-hour notice of the date on which the strike will occur. [ 28 ] The Board examined these provisions in CN 322 . In that case, the employer sought the declaration of an unlawful strike when the union gave its 72-hour strike notice within 60 days of the strike vote but indicated that the strike would occur after that 60-day period. The employer argued that for the strike to be valid, the union not only had to give notice prior to the expiry of the 60-day period but the strike itself also had to commence within the 60-day period. The Board rejected this argument. In reviewing sections 87.2 and 87.3 of the Code , it stated the following: [ 21 ] Section 87.3(1) creates an obligation for a union to hold a secret ballot strike vote prior to declaring or authorizing a strike. Section 87.3(1) does not state that the strike must occur within the 60-day period. The objectives of the Code include the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes. The Board is not prepared to conclude that the intent of section 87.3(1) was to encourage [NAME] to go out on strike during the 60-day period. The purpose of section 87.3(1) was to provide employees in the bargaining unit, by the holding of a strike vote, with a fair voice in such a major decision as the taking of strike action. The Board must give this provision a balanced interpretation that allows both sides flexibility in the conduct of their negotiations and that promotes free collective bargaining. [ 22 ] Pursuant to section 87.2(1) of the Code , a union must give notice indicating the date on which a strike will occur. Such a notice is required to allow for the orderly shutdown of operations and to give the employer a chance to make alternative arrangements. This notice informs the employer in advance that the union has decided to exercise its right to strike. In many cases, the giving of either a lockout or strike notice signals the possibility of impending economic sanctions and places increased pressure on the parties to enter into or revise their collective agreement. [ 23 ] The Board is of the view that as long as the section 87.2(1) strike notice is given during the 60-day period , or such longer period agreed to by the parties, the union has complied with the Code . (emphasis added) [ 29 ] The Board recognized that the strike did not need to occur within the 60-day period set out in section 87.3 of the Code , but it interpreted section 87.2 as requiring the strike notice to be issued within that period. [ 30 ] As discussed in CN 322 , sections 87.2 and 87.3 were included in the Code in 1999 and codify the recommendations contained in the [NAME]. In this report, the authors explained the objectives sought by introducing the requirement for a strike vote: If a mandate for strike action is to be realistic, it must be taken in the context of the current state of bargaining. It is not just a show of support for the union’s position; it is also, implicitly, a rejection of the employer’s stance. The conduct of a strike vote should, in our view, remain the union’s responsibility. But the union should be required by law to comply with several statutory conditions to ensure that the vote is timely, fairly conducted, and based on the entire workplace involved in the dispute. The objective of these conditions is to provide employees with a fair voice in a major decision. It is not to give employers a last minute ground for averting otherwise legal strike action. Challenges to the validity of a strike vote should be limited by short time frames and should only be entertained where the alleged violations seriously call into question the decision of the majority. No such challenge should delay the commencement of otherwise lawful strike action unless the Board, upon application, so directs. (page 105; emphasis added) [ 31 ] The [NAME] went on to make the following recommendations: [NAME] may take strike votes when and as often as they wish, but strike action should only be legal where a positive strike vote has been taken no longer than sixty days prior to strike notice . (page 106; emphasis added) [ 32 ] It further commented on the rationale for a 72-hour notice of strike or lockout: The Canada Labour Code does not currently include a requirement for the parties to give advance notice of a strike or a lockout. Many employers suggest that a 72 hour notice be required in order to allow for the orderly shutdown of operations, and give clients the opportunity to make alternative arrangements. … … The West Coast Ports Inquiry has already recommended a 72 hour strike or lockout notice. We agree. … (pages 116 – 117; emphasis added) [ 33 ] It then summarized its recommendation as follows: In summary, we have made recommendations that will allow diligent parties to conclude collective bargaining by the time their collective agreements expire. We recommend that they be entitled to commence collective bargaining 120 days prior to the expiry of collective agreements. Before parties acquire the right to strike or lockout, they will have had to meet the following preconditions; a) conciliation, if appropriate, must be completed, b) a positive strike or lockout vote had been held sixty days prior to the notice of strike or lockout; and c) a 72 hours notice of strike has been given. (pages 120 – 121; emphasis added) [ 34 ] The statements in the [NAME] and its recommendations are consistent with the provisions of the Code that require that a strike vote be taken 60 days prior to declaring a strike and that a 72-hour strike notice with a specific date be given prior to acquiring the right to strike. There is no doubt that both these requirements overlap and are to apply concurrently prior to the start of a strike or a lockout. [ 35 ] In this case, the union purported to declare a strike without providing a notice with the date on which the strike was to commence. In doing so, it did not comply with section 89(1)(f) of the Code and the requirement to provide a proper strike notice pursuant to section 87.2(1). The requirement is clear that the notice must indicate the date on which the strike will occur. An attempt by the union to defer the announcement of the start date of the strike would negate the purpose of the 72-hour notice and lead to a situation where the strike activity becomes disconnected from the mandate given by the employees in the bargaining unit. [ 36 ] The union relies on the Board’s decision [COMPANY]. , 2012 [NAME] 650, to argue that there is a distinction between the requirement for a 72-hour notice found in section 87.2 of the Code and the declaration of a strike pursuant to section 87.3. [COMPANY]. , the union had given its 72-hour strike notice within 60 days of a valid strike vote. The employees in the bargaining unit did commence a strike in the form of an overtime ban on the date indicated in the notice. Later, and still within the 60-day strike vote period, the union announced that it would escalate its actions in the form of partial strikes. Those partial strikes did occur as indicated by the union. The union then advised the employer that it would escalate its actions to a full strike. This notice was given outside the 60-day strike vote period. The employer argued that this notice of a full strike was not compliant with the Code as it was given more than 60 days after the date on which the union conducted its strike vote. It alleged that the declaration of a full strike was unlawful. [ 37 ] [COMPANY]. , the Board did speak of the distinction between sections 87.2 and 87.3 of the Code . However, it concluded that the initial strike notices issued by the union fulfilled the obligations of the Code as set out in section 87.2 and that the strike activities had begun on the date indicated in the notices. It found that no new notice was required for the escalation to a full strike. It stated the following: [ 24 ] By virtue of the fact that the provisions appear in separate sections of the Code , and the order in which they appear, it is clear that [NAME] intended to make a distinction between the declaration or authorization of a strike or lockout and the 72 hour notice of actual initiation of a strike or lockout that one party is required to give to the other. [ 25 ] In the instant case, the Board is of the view that the union met the requirements of both sections 87.2(1) and 87.3(1) of the Code when it sent the formal notice to the employer and the Minister of Labour on May 23, 2012, advising that a strike would commence on May 26, 2012. This letter acted as a strike declaration, and clearly took place within 60 days of the strike vote. The letter therefore meets the requirements of section 87.3(1) of the Code . [ 26 ] The union’s May 23, 2012 letter to the employer also fulfills the obligation set out in section 87.2(1) of the Code , as it provided 72 hours notice of the date on which a strike, in the form of an overtime ban, would begin. The strike actually began on that date, and continued without interruption up to and including the date on which the union escalated its activities to include a complete work stoppage by certain of its members on June 4, 2012. The union’s June 1, 2012 notice of this escalation of activity left the employer in no doubt that employees represented by SPEA were engaged in strike activity. Consequently, the purpose of the statutory strike notice, which is to allow the employer to make appropriate preparations for a work stoppage, had been served as of June 1, and no further notices from the union were required to fulfill the requirements of section 87.2 of the Code after that date. [ 38 ] The Board is unable to accept the suggestion that this decision supports the union’s position that it was not necessary to provide a 72-hour notice indicating the date of the strike activity prior to the expiry of a valid strike vote. Rather, [COMPANY]. , the Board concluded that both requirements had been met when the union provided its notice of an overtime ban and of an escalation of its strike activities within 60 days of the strike vote. [ 39 ] The Board acknowledges that the 72-hour notice and the strike vote serve different purposes. The notice provides clarity and allows employers and their clients to take appropriate measures for the reduction or shutdown of operations. The strike vote allows employees in the bargaining unit to have a say in a decision that has direct ramifications on their work and livelihood. However, the Board cannot accept the distinction that the union is attempting to make between the declaration or authorization of a strike by the union and the strike notice required by section 87.2 of the Code and its position that they can be issued separately and at different times. In the Board’s view, section 89(1) specifically sets out that the authorization and declaration of a strike is contingent on the union’s compliance with both the requirement to give a 72-hour strike notice with a specific start date as required by section 87.2 of the Code and the requirement of a valid strike vote as provided in section 87.3. The Board recognizes that [NAME] may have their own internal process for authorizing a strike, but that does not take precedence over the legislative requirements. [ 40 ] The Board is also cognizant of the potential consequences of not requiring the 72-hour notice within 60 days of a valid strike vote. As discussed by the employer, a union could simply give a strike declaration and reserve the right to issue its 72-hour notice weeks or months after the expiry of the strike vote. This would mean that the period of 60 days provided in section 87.3 of the Code for the strike vote to remain valid would have no useful purpose or effect. Similarly, the specific language in this provision, allowing the union and the employer to voluntarily agree to extend the validity of the strike vote, would be void of any practical utility if the union could simply defer its 72-hour notice to any time after the expiry of the 60-day period.

V. Conclusion [ 41 ] For the reasons expressed above, the Board finds that the union’s letter of September 8, 2023, purporting to declare a strike with immediate effect, does not meet the statutory requirements to declare or authorize a lawful strike pursuant to section 89(1) of the Code . More specifically, the Board is of the view that the letter does not comply with sections 87.2(1) and section 89(1)(f) of the Code . It therefore finds that the union unlawfully declared a strike when it issued the strike declaration on September 8, 2023. [ 42 ] Given this conclusion, the Board is of the opinion that it does not need to determine whether the strike vote was held more than 60 days prior to the union’s letter. ____________________ [NAME]