1. Background
The Syndicat des professionnelles en soins des Cantons-de-l’Est (FIQ) represents, among others, nurses and nursing assistants at the CHUS Maternity Ward – Fleurimont Hospital (the “Union”). For several months, it has been denouncing the employer’s intensive use of mandatory overtime (the “MOT”).
In April 2025, the nurses and nursing assistants who are members of the Union (the “Employees”) launched a visibility campaign to put pressure on the employer to reduce its use of MOT.
To this end, the Employees wore stickers with the Union’s logo, which also read “CHU à boutte!” (I am at the end of its rope!). At the same time, posters were put up throughout the maternity unit, which read, depending on the case:
· “Working MOT to care for mothers and babies is too risky.” “
· “MOT is professional murder.”
· “Attention healthcare professionals in TS/MOT/OVERLOAD”
The employer requires the Union and its Employees to cease such means of expression, under penalty of disciplinary action. The Union then files a complaint under section 12 of the Labor Code.
2. The employer’s arguments in support of its directive
Before the Administrative Labor Tribunal (the “TAT”), the employer argued that the posters and stickers could cause concern among patients in the maternity ward. According to the employer, this could undermine the relationship of trust that is essential between employees and patients, which is linked to the quality of care that must be provided.
The employer also argued that freedom of expression and association must give way to the rights of beneficiaries to receive care in a peaceful environment. For beneficiaries, seeing posters or stickers stating that nurses are “overworked” is problematic and alarming.
3. Analysis and decision of the TAT
The TAT points out that fundamental rights (such as freedom of expression) may be limited, but only if the restriction is rational, minimal, and proportionate to the objective pursued.
However, the TAT found that the evidence did not reveal any complaints from patients or their companions; that no negative impact on the employer’s care or operations had been demonstrated; that the employer’s fears were based solely on subjective assumptions (and not objective facts); and that the means of visibility used by the Employees were respectful.
The ban imposed is therefore deemed unreasonable and excessive by the TAT. In doing so, the TAT concludes that the employer interfered with union activities and intentionally infringed on the freedoms of expression and association of the Union and its Employees. It therefore orders the employer to cease this interference and to pay $10,000 in punitive damages to the Union.
4. Comments
The TAT criticized the employer for failing to present evidence regarding the impact that the content of the posters or stickers had or could have had on the beneficiaries of the maternity unit.
Are the messages conveyed by the posters or stickers alone not sufficient to conclude that a reasonable patient treated in the maternity unit would be concerned about not receiving the required care? The question arises, although the TAT decided otherwise.
However, in light of this decision, obtaining a report from a mental health professional prior to the employer’s adoption of the directive, on the impact that the content of such posters or stickers may have on the mental health of the beneficiaries of the maternity unit, and the testimony of this professional before the TAT to the same effect, might have led to a different conclusion on the part of the TAT.
In light of this decision, which has not been subject to internal review or judicial review, let us ensure that we have evidence to present on the negative consequences that pressure tactics have on an employer’s operations before taking action.
