On March 13, the Tribunal administratif du travail (the “TAT”) applied for the first time the new provisions of the Labor Code that allow for greater consideration of the public’s needs in the event of a strike or lockout[1].
What do these new provisions say?
These new provisions, which came into effect on November 30, 2025, allow the government to require an employer and a union to maintain certain services to the public when it determines that a labor dispute disproportionately jeopardizes the social, economic, or environmental security of the public, particularly that of vulnerable individuals.
The Decision
In this case, the plaintiff, a daycare center located in Roberval, was able to convince the TAT that the strike, which had been ongoing since October 22, 2025, disproportionately jeopardized the social safety of the children attending its services as well as the socioeconomic safety of their parents.
More specifically, the TAT considered it highly likely that being deprived of a structured and educational environment would cause a certain level of harm to the children, particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged communities or when the child has a pre-existing vulnerability.
Among the effects of the strike identified by the TAT are difficulties in social, cognitive, and emotional development, as well as an increase in anxiety and behavioral problems among children, among others.
On this point, the TAT rejects the Union’s argument that these effects are essentially “normal irritants of everyday life for everyone.” Furthermore, the TAT notes that a CPE constitutes an external childcare setting that offers certain children protection from maltreatment and the possibility of preventing abuse.
The TAT also highlights the limited alternatives available to affected families (teleworking, reduced work hours, changing jobs, help from relatives) and notes that, due to the strike, the socioeconomic security of parents — and particularly that of mothers — is disproportionately compromised.
In response to the union’s argument that it is “unacceptable to accept the state’s inability to provide daycare spots for thousands of children while restricting the educators’ constitutional right to strike,” the Tribunal states:
« [220] The fact that other parents do not have access to the subsidized childcare system does not make the situation any more acceptable for the parents at issue here, who, for their part, ultimately did gain access to a spot. The instability, stress, and costs generated by the situation become excessive after such a prolonged period. » [Our translation]
Consequently, the parties are ordered to negotiate an agreement on services ensuring the well-being of the public in the event of a strike, subject to the outcome of the pending constitutional challenge regarding the whole new regime established by Bill 14.
