Key Takeaways
Beyond the outcome of the dispute, this decision provides initial insight into the practical application of the framework for services ensuring public welfare. It helps to better define the scope of Bill 14 by drawing a clear line between the inconveniences normally associated with the exercise of the right to strike and situations where those effects become disproportionate to the point of justifying intervention by the Tribunal.
Bill 14 redefines the limits of the right to strike by placing greater emphasis on the well-being of the population.
Effective November 30, 2025, Bill 14 introduces a new concept into the Labour Code: services ensuring public welfare. Entitled An Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or lock-out, LQ 2025, c. 14, it defines such services as “the services minimally required to prevent the population’s social, economic or environmental security from being disproportionally affected, in particular that of persons in vulnerable situations.”
This new framework has led the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) to rule, for the first time, on the scope of this concept in Centre de la petite enfance Le Jardin de Robi inc. v. Syndicat des travailleuses des centres de la petite enfance et des bureaux coordonnateurs du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, FSSS-CSN.
Why This Case is a Game Changer
On February 6, 2026, CPE Le Jardin de Robi Inc. (the “Employer”) filed a motion with the Tribunal seeking to maintain a certain number of services despite the strike, citing public welfare as the reason. The backdrop to this was a collective agreement that had expired in March 2023.
After several days of sporadic strikes, the Union called for an unlimited general strike on October 22, 2025, resulting in a complete shutdown of childcare services. Following the enactment of Bill 14, the Employer sought the Minister of Labour’s intervention so that the Tribunal could rule on the necessity of maintaining some services during the strike to ensure public welfare. On February 4, 2026, a government decree was issued authorizing this action.
The Tribunal is thus faced with an unprecedented question: under what circumstances can a strike be limited for the sake of public welfare? It must determine whether the circumstances justify ordering the maintenance of particular services and, in doing so, give initial meaning to this key concept introduced by Bill 14.
Finally, it should be noted that the case does not raise any environmental safety issues and that the Tribunal does not, at this stage, rule on the constitutional validity of Bill 14.
How to Interpret Services Ensuring Public Welfare?
The Tribunal provides guidance on to interpret this new concept, relying on the purpose of the framework and the context in which it applies. In light of the legislative provisions, parliamentary debates and the context in which Bill 14 was adopted, the Tribunal finds that the regime of services ensuring public welfare is meant to apply when the essential services regime does not apply, so as to prevent consequences deemed disproportionate for the public.
However, while the legislative objective is clear, the criteria for assessing its practical scope are less so, since neither social security, economic security nor the notion of disproportion are defined by the Code.
What do these notions actually encompass?
Social security traditionally refers to collective protection mechanisms designed to shield individuals from social risks that could lead to a deterioration in living conditions. However, the parliamentary debates reveal that the legislature’s broader aim was to prevent significant hardships that could result from a work stoppage, such as poverty, isolation, food insecurity, impediments to personal development, and violations of rights, security and dignity.
Economic security, closely linked to this definition of social security, refers to a person’s ability to meet their basic needs in a sustainable and dignified manner, including, among other things, food, housing, clothing, hygiene, healthcare, living expenses, education, and the means to earn a living.
When Do the Impacts of a Strike Become Disproportionate?
Every strike causes inconvenience for the population. The question is to determine when these effects become disproportionate. However, intervention under Bill 14 is justified only where the consequences of the labour dispute exceed what the public can normally be expected to bear, that is, when they are causing undue harm. This analysis is essentially contextual. Specifically, the duration and severity of the dispute, the nature of the interrupted services, the affected population, whether there are vulnerable individuals, and whether there are available alternatives must all be taken into account.
Finally, the Tribunal specifies that, given the use of the term “in particular” in section 111.22.3 of the Code, the analysis is not limited solely to individuals in vulnerable situations. It also encompasses more broadly all members of the population that relies on the interrupted services.
Concrete Impacts on Children and Families
The Tribunal places educational childcare services at the heart of Québec’s social safety net. It points out that these services play an essential role far beyond mere childcare, particularly with regard to child development, work‑life balance, and equal opportunities. Here, the Employer provides services to a population with significant vulnerabilities, as a significant proportion of children are under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection (DYP) or Indigenous child protection services.
The Tribunal finds that the prolonged interruption of services undermines the children’s social security due to the instability it creates, the disruption of routines, the anxiety, and the behavioural manifestations observed. It also emphasizes that the daycare centre deprives children of the protection provided by a structured external environment, especially in terms of identifying and reporting situations that compromise their safety or development.
The Tribunal also finds that the parents’ socioeconomic security has been compromised. The strike hinders their ability to work, results in lost income and increased expenses, and causes heightened stress and mental strain, particularly for families that are already vulnerable. The combined effect of the strike exceptionally long duration, the exhaustion of alternative solutions, and the lack of viable alternatives leads the Tribunal to conclude that the effects of the conflict are disproportionate.
A Decision Clarifying the Concepts Introduced by Bill 14
In light of the overall factual context, the Tribunal concludes that the unlimited general strike has disproportionate effects on the social security of children and the socioeconomic security of parents. Accordingly, it orders the maintenance of some services, as provided for in Bill 14.
This decision clearly illustrates the circumstances in which the public welfare may justify limiting the effects of a strike.
Our labour and employment law team remains available to assist you in analyzing and implementing the obligations arising from Bill14.
