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. The issue is that subsection 94(7)—“Exception—threat, destruction or damage”—says at the top that an employer “does not contravene” that ban if they hire people to do work in these emergency situations during a strike or lockout.
Right now, if that were to happen—if the employer, during a strike or lockout, were to bring in someone to respond to a “threat to the life, health or safety of any person” or the “destruction” of property—as the bill is written currently, the returning striking or locked-out members wouldn't necessarily have a right to be reinstated above those people, because those people weren't hired illegally. They were hired within the four corners of the law.
This represents an expansion of the right to reinstatement. It also includes those people if they were brought in during the strike or lockout. It basically gives the union members the right to return in preference to anyone, whether illegal or not, who was doing their job while they were on strike.