Human Resources committee  That's right.

Human Resources committee  Yes, that's right. The provisions related to the ban on replacement workers will apply as of the day the bill comes into force and will apply if there is an ongoing strike or lockout as of that day. In practice, that means that if an employer is using replacement workers who would be prohibited by the ban when the bill comes into force, then as of the day that it comes into force, they would no longer be able to continue doing so.

Human Resources committee  The effect of the addition of this new proposed paragraph 94(7)(c) would be essentially to impose a requirement on the employer with regard to using replacement workers. Before the employer could resort to using replacement workers—who would otherwise be illegal under the act to deal with some of these exceptional circumstances, like threat to life, health safety, etc.

Human Resources committee  No, the managers would be distinct from the employees. It's two categories in proposed paragraph 94(4)(a). The way proposed paragraph 94(4)(a) is structured, it says, “any employee or any person who performs management functions”, and that's the category that's a manager. Proposed paragraph 94(4)(c) would just be anyone who is in an employment relationship, but not including the managers.

Human Resources committee  Adding paragraph (c) to proposed subsection 94(4) would broaden the scope of the prohibition on replacement workers under the bill. Currently, under Bill C-58, the employers are only prohibited from using their employees if they were hired after a notice to bargain was given in the particular dispute that's in question.

Human Resources committee  I can tell you what the bill does as it's currently written with the words “dependent contractor” in there. Essentially, the wording is there to clarify to the reader that we're using an undefined term at the beginning of proposed paragraph 94(4)(b), which is “contractor”. If you were reading the code as a person wanting to apply the law, you might think the word “contractor” includes dependent contractors.

Human Resources committee  Thanks, Zia. I'll try to state it as clearly as possible, but it can get a little esoteric within the industrial relations framework. Essentially, a dependant contractor is a person who's not in a direct employment relationship with an employer. They don't have a contract with an employer.

Human Resources committee  This provision is specifically about the right of employees returning from a strike or lockout to be reinstated to their jobs. What the amendment does is broaden who they have a right to reinstatement over, essentially, if that helps. The way it's written currently, if an employer were to bring in a new employee in an emergency situation, as enumerated in subsection 94(4) to the CLC, then the returning striking or locked-out workers wouldn't necessarily have a right to be reinstated over that person, because that person wasn't used illegally.

Human Resources committee  Yes. I would say that's a fair characterization of it.

Human Resources committee  Yes, I will, unless anyone wants to take it. Maybe the best way to explain in a clear way, which unfortunately I haven't done up to this point.... I'm sorry about that. The words in the part that says “contrary to subsection 94(4)” are saying that the people who are returning—striking or locked-out employees—have the right to replace people who were used illegally.

Human Resources committee  With this amendment, it would be a broadening of the reinstatement provision found at clause 7. That would amend section 87.6 of the code. What it would essentially provide now, as amended, is that when striking or locked-out workers return to their jobs after the strike or lockout ends, they have preferential reinstatement over any other person who may have been performing any kind of work for the employer during the strike or lockout.

Human Resources committee  My understanding of the amendment is that it's removing the words “whose services were used contrary to subsection 94(4).” It's getting rid of that caveat and making it about any person.

Human Resources committee  This may be a question for the legislative clerk. My understanding of the amendment is that it would remove the words “whose services were used contrary to subsection 94(4).” Thus, it's now no longer saying that in order for an employee returning from a strike or lockout to replace someone, they have to be used illegally in the context of that strike.