From Uncertainty To A Normative Framework: The ALT Rules For The First Time On Services Ensuring The Well-Being Of The Population

On November30,2025, Law14, An Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lockout ("Law 14") officially introduced a new regulatory system governing the maintenance of services should a labour dispute take place in Québec. In a previous bulletin, we outlined the major changes introduced by Bill89 (which became Law14), including the notion of "services ensuring the well-being of the population" ("SWBP") to be maintained in the event of a labour dispute.

Until recently, the obligation to maintain services during a labour dispute was limited to essential services, or those services that, if they were unavailable, would compromise public health or safety. As a result of Law14, the regulatory system has been expanded to include the services minimally required to prevent a disproportionate impact on the social, economic or environmental security of the population, and in particular that of persons in vulnerable situations.¹

Law14 introduced into the Labour Code (the "Code") a four-step process to be followed for maintaining such services:

1. The government designates, by order, the workplaces that offer such services.²
2. The certified association or employer involved files an application with the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the "ALT" or "Tribunal") to determine whether that employer does provide services ensuring the well-being of the population.³
3. If the application is allowed, the parties must agree on which services will be maintained and how they will be maintained.⁴
4. The agreement must then be submitted to the ALT for approval, or, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, the ALT will determine which services will be maintained.⁵

The new system has significantly disrupted the statutory framework that had been governing labour disputes in Québec, bringing a host of questions and uncertainties.

However, just recently, in a thoroughly reasoned decision, the ALT provided the first insights into the maintenance of services ensuring the well-being of the population in the event of a labour dispute,⁶ which we will review in this bulletin.

FACTS

In this case, unionized employees of a childcare centre launched an unlimited general strike on October 22, 2025, and the employer had no longer been providing childcare services since that date.

On December 22, 2025, the employer contacted the Minister of Labour to request a recommendation for the government to issue an order designating its workplace as offering SWBP. On February 4, 2026, Order in Council 144-2026 was issued. Two days later, the employer filed an application with the ALT to have the services designated as ensuring the well-being of the population.

A panel of three administrative judges allowed the application, and, for the first time, ordered the parties to maintain services ensuring the well-being of the population.

FIRST INSIGHTS ON SWBP

The ALT's decision provides initial answers to some of the questions that remained as to how the system governing the maintenance of services ensuring the well-being of the population would apply:

1) When and how will the government issue an order designating a workplace as offering SWBP?

As section 111.22.4 of the Code provides that the government may, by order, designate an association and an employer in respect of which the ALT may determine whether SWBP must be maintained in a labour dispute, there is currently nothing to suggest that the Minister of Labour cannot, on his (or her) own initiative, recommend that such an order be issued. Nevertheless, what the ALT's decision reveals is that the parties (in practice, most likely employers) can ask the Minister directly to recommend the issuance of an order to that effect. There does not appear to be a specific format in which such a request must be submitted, nor any mandatory content that must be included. A party may also submit a request more than once.

2) How long does it take for the government to process a request to issue an order?

The ALT's decision reveals that an initial request was made to the Minister on December 1, 2025, and a refusal was issued just over two weeks later. As for the second request made to the Minister on December 22, 2025, it took approximately a month and a half for the order to be issued after the request was submitted, but that included the winter holidays. As these requests were made in the days and weeks after Law14 came into force, it remains to be seen whether processing times will be similar over time.

3) Can a workplace be subject to both an order to maintain essential services and services ensuring the well-being of the population?

Yes, in the case of public services, it is possible that there could be an order to maintain these two types of services.⁷ SWBP are servicesother thanthose required to avoid endangering public health or safety.

4) Must a labour dispute already be underway for an order to be issued and a request to be submitted to the ALT?

No.⁸ An order may be issued at any time before a collective agreement or its equivalent is filed,⁹ and a request may be made to the ALT at any time from the moment the right to strike or to a lockout is acquired,¹⁰ that is, 90days after receipt of the notice of bargaining.¹¹

5) What must be demonstrated for the ALT to order that services ensuring the well-being of the population be maintained?

The evidence required is twofold: there must be an impact on the social, economic or environmental security of the population or a portion of the population—particularly the most vulnerable— and that impact must be disproportionate.

6) What does "social security" mean?

Social security aims [translation] "to protect the population or shield it from significant difficulties caused by a work stoppage, including poverty, isolation, food insecurity, harm to a person's development and infringement of rights, security and dignity."¹²

7) What does "economic security" mean?

Economic security consists of [translation] "elements consistent with social security that may have an economic connotation. For example poverty, food insecurity, isolation and the ability to get to work and earn a living."¹³ Economic security is closely linked to social security. Economic security is that which enables individuals to, over the long term and with dignity, meet their essential or basic needs, namely [translation] "food, shelter, clothing, hygiene, health care, living expenses, education and the resources necessary to earn a living."¹⁴

8) How can it be determined if the effects on the population are "disproportionate"?

The effects of a strike or lockout do not necessarily need to endanger the social, economic or environmental security of the population. What needs to be determined is whether there are inconveniences that exceed or go beyond what the "normal" impacts of a labour dispute would be. Given that Bill14 aims to balance the right to strike with public protection, one can conclude that the level of inconvenience that the population can "normally" be expected to bear as a result of a labour dispute is high. Thus, for the ALT to intervene and order that SWBP be maintained, the population must be "unduly harmed" as a result of a labour dispute. However, the threshold should not be so high that it becomes unattainable.

The ALT specified that [translation] "[t]he duration of the conflict, its intensity, the nature of the interrupted services, the characteristics of the affected population and the presence of vulnerable people among it, as well as the lack of alternatives, are all factors that may influence the assessment."¹⁵

However, the assessment does not involve weighing the beneficial effects of ordering the maintenance of SWBP against the infringement of the right to strike resulting that it would entail.

9) How is "population" defined, and in particular "persons in vulnerable situations"?

The "population" whose social, economic, or environmental security must be assessed consists of the individuals who use the service that has been interrupted due to the labour dispute. The labour dispute does not necessarily have to affect persons in vulnerable situations for the ALT to order that SWBP be maintained, but that factor is certainly one to consider.

"Persons in vulnerable situations" includes [translation] "individuals who are in vulnerable situations, either because of their physical condition, for example, an elderly person or a person with a disability, or because of the circumstances in which they find themselves, though sometimes only temporarily."¹⁶ These are persons who, regardless of the reasons—intrinsic or extrinsic—, are more likely to be more severely affected by the vagaries of a labour dispute.

DECISION RENDERED BY THE ALT

The ALT concluded that the social security of children attending the childcare centre and the social and economic security of their parents were disproportionately affected by the unlimited general strike that had begun on October 22:

• The strike was affecting a vulnerable population, including an Indigenous community of a substantial size, as well as children, over 17% of whom were under the supervision of Youth Protection Services, some also having special needs requiring integration measures, and some whose parents were recipients of benefits under government social assistance, social solidarity or employment assistance programs.

• By its very mission, the childcare centre provides services that contribute to the social and economic security of parents and children.

• Because of the labour dispute, the social security of the children was disrupted (a lack of stability and predictability resulting in or exacerbating behavioural changes, deprivation of a safe care environment without).

• The social and economic security of parents was also disrupted (significant impact on women who assume a greater share of childcare responsibilities and are thus deprived of the freedom to equally participate in the labour market; recourse to alternative resources such as taking leave, working remotely, resorting to drop-in and unsubsidized childcare services; changing jobs; significant contribution of parents, grandparents and extended family; compromised ability to work, cost of replacement daycare services or short-term daycare; stress; anxiety; sleep disorders; increased mental load).

• The effects of the strike were disproportionate in this case: it had been on for more than 20weeks. It was indefinite and continuous, which was decisive given [translation] "the nature of the interrupted services, the social and economic context, the affected population and the absence of alternative measures."¹⁷

DETERMINATION OF SERVICES TO BE MAINTAINED

After the decision was rendered, the parties agreed on which SWBP to maintain. They submitted their agreement to the Tribunal, which assessed its adequacy.¹⁸

At that stage, the Tribunal had to determine [translation] "whether the services provided for in the agreement [were] thoseminimallyrequired to avoid thedisproportionate effectscreated by the strike on the social or economic security"¹⁹ of the affected population. The ALT had to limit the scope to what was strictly necessary to avoid the undue harm suffered by the population. Thus, as the ALT specified, [translation] "[t]he SWBP must therefore be carefully identified to cover only the 'undue' portion of the harm."²⁰

In this case, the ALT found that the provision of educational childcare services three days a week, on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, from 8:30a.m. to 3:45p.m., was adequate in terms of maintenance of services. It also intervened to identify which SWBP should be maintained in the event of a new strike.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

In short, with its recent decision, the ALT has clarified several grey areas and addressed important questions that arose when the bill was introduced in February 2025. By providing clear definitions and establishing guidelines, the ALT has given employers and unions a framework with which to work in the future.

One major issue, however, remains unsolved: that of the analysis required when a disproportionate impact on the population's social, economic or environmental security has not yet materialized. In its ruling, the ALT had concrete evidence that harm was already occurring, as the strike had lasted five months and it had sworn statements detailing the harm suffered. The maintenance of services ensuring the well-being of the population may also be ordered preventively to avoid such prejudice. If this were to be done, many of the ALT's principles will need to be adapted, or even reworked. It therefore remains to be seen how the Tribunal will adapt its analysis when called upon to rule in the absence of previously established harm.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.