Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 335, November 2004

Case No 2257 (Canada) - Complaint date: 18-MAR-03 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organizations allege that there is no legislative protection of their right of association against employer interference, that they have been prevented from conducting collective bargaining, that the right of managerial staff in Quebec to bargain collectively regarding their working conditions is not respected and that there is a lack of mechanisms for settling disputes in the absence of the right to strike

1. 412. The complaint is contained in a communication of 18 March 2003 sent by the National Confederation of Managerial Staff of Quebec (CNCQ), the Association of Managerial Staff of the Société des casinos du Québec (ACSCQ), the Association of Senior Managerial Staff of Health and Social Services (ACSSSS) and the Association of Branch Managers of the Société des alcools du Québec (ADDS/SAQ).
2. 413. The Government of Canada forwarded the reply of the Government of Quebec in a communication dated 23 April 2004.
3. 414. Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), nor the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 415. In their communication of 18 March 2003, the complainant organizations allege that their right of association is not adequately protected against employer interference, that they cannot conduct collective bargaining concerning the working conditions of managerial staff in Quebec, that, in the absence of the right to strike, they do not possess a mechanism for settling labour disputes, and that the exclusion of managerial staff from the general provisions of collective labour law in Quebec is fundamentally discriminatory. They describe the background of their fruitless attempts to have their rights recognized, which have been continuing since 1977 (c.f. Annex 1).
   • The status of the complainant organizations
2. 416. The National Confederation of Managerial Staff of Quebec (CNCQ) is a grouping of 18 associations of managerial personnel representing almost 6,500 employees in the municipal, public and parapublic sectors in Quebec. The Confederation, founded in 1992, has always had the following aims: to replace the consultative system set up by the Government of Quebec with a real collective bargaining system; to represent all managerial personnel in Quebec, including executives working in private enterprises, no longer parapublic sector management only; to induce the Government of Quebec to adopt specific legislation or, at least, to amend the Labour Code so that it no longer excludes managerial staff.
3. 417. The Association of Branch Managers of the Société des alcools du Québec (ADDS/SAQ), founded in 1977, is an association which today represents more than 350 branch managers of the Société des alcools (ADDS/SAQ) throughout Quebec. Its members are primary executives in that the personnel under their management are all unionized workers. The aim of the ADDS/SAQ is, among other things, to protect and improve the labour conditions of its members. The Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ) recognizes the ADDS/SAQ as representative of all SAQ branch managers in the area of labour relations, but does so on a purely voluntary basis. According to the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding signed in August 2000, the SAQ must consult the ADDS/SAQ before deciding on or altering the working conditions of that association’s members. By virtue of this Memorandum of Understanding, the SAQ agrees to deduct the fees demanded by the ADDS/SAQ from the salaries of all the branch managers. Thus, the ADDS/SAQ enjoys a voluntary form of recognition by the employer, the SAQ, that grants it the privilege of being consulted but not that of being able to bargain collectively for its members as a whole.
4. 418. The Association of Managerial Staff of the Société des casinos du Québec (ACSCQ), founded in 1997, is an association that, today, has nearly 220 members from the casinos of Hull and Montreal. The members of these associations work as “inspectors” and are therefore primary executives, as the workers under their management are unionized. The role of the ACSCQ is to represent its members and to advocate their economic, social and occupational interests to their employer, the Société des casinos du Québec (SCQ). To this end, the ACSCQ and the SCQ signed a first Memorandum of Understanding in May 1998, recognizing the ACSCQ as representative of its members for the purposes of labour relations. Thus, the ACSCQ has the right to be consulted by the employer’s representatives before labour conditions are established or modified. For its part, the SCQ agrees to deduct members’ union fees from their salaries and allow ACSCQ representatives leave of absence with pay so that they can participate in meetings with the employer’s representatives.
5. 419. The Association of Senior Managerial Staff of Health and Social Services (ACSSSS), founded in 1973, is an association that represents around 1,600 directors of public services in charge of services provided in health and social security establishments in Quebec. The members (around 1,000) of this voluntary association organize and coordinate human, financial and information resources in these establishments. ACSSSS members are members of staff at the establishments where they work. Hence, the ACSSSS operates in the parapublic sector. It is recognized by the Government of Quebec as the representative of its members, who, for administrative purposes, are described as senior management. However, considering their duties and the way in which the hierarchy of these establishments functions, these personnel should, in fact, be considered as middle management. The recognition they have is the result of a decree adopted by the Government of Quebec and cannot be compared to the benefits that would be derived from the implementation of a law or general regulation recognizing workers’ associations and furthering the exercise of their freedom of association. In effect, the Government of Quebec passed this decree in its role as employer. It was a civil act, rather than a use of public power. Since the Government can only express itself by decree, it had to pass a decree to give formal recognition to the ACSSSS as an interlocutor. However, the Government is not compelled by any law or regulation to recognize this association and could unilaterally withdraw its recognition of the ACSSSS at any moment. In this regard, therefore, this association is in no better position than the two other complainant associations described above.
   • The status of the members of the
   • complainant organizations
6. 420. The members of the associations that are party to this complaint are all members of primary-level or middle management. As such, they exercise some management authority over individuals who, generally, are not part of management. However, although they can be consulted or may even take part in certain discussions on the broader policy or administrative orientation of their organization or company, these personnel do not have a decision-making role in such areas.
7. 421. The complainant organizations all enjoy a certain level of recognition by their respective employers or by the ministry overseeing them. In theory, therefore, they are consulted when the employers are drawing up or altering the working conditions of their members. Nevertheless, even where the employers are obliged to consult with the unions, this level of consultation relies on the good faith of the employer, since no sanctions are applied where this obligation is not met. At best, the role played by the associations is purely consultative and demonstrates the limits of their power. In no sense are the associations recognized in order that they may take part in real collective bargaining on the working conditions of their members; they have merely the right to be consulted. The employer therefore remains the sole decision-maker in establishing working conditions for management.
8. 422. While this complaint contests the legislative and statutory situation in the Province of Quebec with regard to recognition and guaranteeing of the right to collective bargaining, it must be pointed out that the employers involved in the complaint are either part of the parapublic sector (as in the case of the ACSSSS) or are state organizations independent of direct government control but nevertheless connected to the operators of the State. In neither case, however, are the members of the complainant associations officials of the Government of the Province of Quebec in the eyes of the law.
   • The general legal framework
9. 423. Collective labour relations in Quebec are regulated by the Labour Code (L.R.Q., C.C-27). Even though this Code has undergone several revisions, including in 2000, the law has maintained the exclusion of management from the jurisdiction of the Labour Code. All managerial personnel in Quebec are affected by this exclusion, not only those represented by the complainant organizations. The Code establishes and explains all the procedures for setting up a trade union at a place of employment by means of obtaining a certificate of accreditation, and provides accredited unions with the necessary tools for collective bargaining and for concluding collective agreements. The Code prohibits interference into workers’ right of association and collective bargaining, and lays down the relevant sanctions.
10. 424. However, the sphere of application of the Labour Code is unduly restricted owing to its restrictive definition of the term “employee”. Section 3 of the Labour Code states that “Every employee has the right to belong to the association of employees of his choice, and to participate in the formation, activities and management of such an association.” The term “employee” is defined as follows in section 1(l) of the Labour Code: “Employee: a person who works for an employer and for remuneration; however, the word does not include: (1) a person who, in the opinion of the Commission, is employed as manager, superintendent, foreman or representative of the employer in its relations with its employees”. The concepts of manager, superintendent, foreman or representative of the employer in its relations with employees have been interpreted liberally by the courts with the consequence that a significant number of workers who otherwise possess all the required qualities and interests to bargain collectively on their working conditions have been placed in the category of managerial personnel who may not become unionized. As a result, management are excluded from the sphere of application of the Code wherever the Commissioner of Labour considers them to be managers, superintendents, foremen or representatives of the employer in its relations with employees.
11. 425. The inclusion of management in the current Labour Code would doubtless constitute an improvement to the situation as it now stands, but it is important to note that that would not fulfil the requirements of international labour Conventions, which do not count it sufficient for a right to be given in theory but also require that specific measures be taken to facilitate the exercise of that right. Through accreditation, the Labour Code has, in effect, limited the recognition of trade union representation to enterprise level rather than sector level. Consequently, even though they are not insignificant in number overall, managerial personnel, who are few in number by comparison with other employees in an enterprise, are not generally able to organize in trade unions or enterprise associations. When they do succeed in organizing, it is generally in branches of economic activity, for the purpose of sectoral negotiations.
    • The points of contention
12. 426. With regards to mechanisms for settling disputes, the CNCQ and its member associations of managerial staff demand that the Government of Quebec allow trade unions to be created for this category of workers that are separate from those of the employees under their management, in order to limit conflicts of interest arising from their belonging to the same union organizations. It also demands that an enforceable mediation and conciliation mechanism be established by common consent and with the trust of the interested parties, in the place of the right to strike. The CNCQ also contests the lack of any legislative protection for management associations and their members against interference or intimidation on the part of employers – a form of protection granted to other employees’ associations in Quebec.
13. 427. In respect of the forms of recognition accorded to management staff, the complainant organizations stress that these are very precarious, as they can be withdrawn unilaterally at any moment and the members of the aforementioned associations enjoy no protection against any form of pressure or attempted interference on the part of the employer. It is therefore vital for the members of the complainant associations of managerial personnel that, as well as being granted the right to recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining and the right to make use of conflict resolution mechanisms, they be protected from attempts at interference and intimidation made by employers. Various examples demonstrate how vulnerable they are to employer intrusion into their activities.
    • (a) The ADDS/SAQ
      • On several occasions in the last four years, the employer, the SAQ, has altered the labour conditions of its branch managers without even carrying out prior consultation of the ADDS/SAQ as stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding (working hours altered unilaterally; elimination of overtime; restrictive leave regulations; remuneration; etc.). Furthermore, several attempts have been made to decrease the time off granted to ADDS/SAQ members to attend to the activities of their association. A recent arbitrational decision showed the weakness of the Memorandum of Understanding that had been concluded with the employer when the arbitrator noted that a director does not have the right to appeal against a clause in his/her conditions of labour unless the matter in question is a disciplinary measure taken by the employer.
    • (b) The ACSCQ
      • The ACSCQ, like the ADDS/SAQ, has only a right of consultation and not a right to be a party in bargaining as a representative of its members. Similarly, the ACSCQ is recognized on a strictly voluntary basis by the employer, who can therefore unilaterally decide to ignore it at any moment. Furthermore, the members of the association are not protected in any way against interference or reprisals that could be taken against them by their employer because of their trade union activities: refusal of leave of absence; refusal to include the ACSCQ in discussions regarding the renewal of collective insurance, as the employer preferred to nominate a director of the enterprise as the representative of management; a note by a senior executive to the effect that “an officer of the association cannot be temporarily assigned to carry out the work of his/her immediate superior”; direct consultation by employers of management with regard to their working conditions, thus disregarding the recognition of the association.
    • (c) The ACSSSS
      • The ACSSSS has the right to be consulted before management policies establishing the working conditions of its members are defined or altered. Thus, this consultative role does not allow the ACSSSS to bargain collectively in respect of the working conditions of its members. As with the other associations, ACSSSS members are not protected in any way against acts of interference or intimidation that could be perpetrated against them. Senior management in health and social services therefore find themselves in just as precarious a situation as the members of the other associations with regard to the exercise of their freedom of association. On occasion, moreover, this has led to conflict, of which some examples follow:
      • – working conditions modified without prior consultation;
      • – where there is consultation, it is carried out very speedily, by telephone, etc., ensuring that any exchange of views bears not the remotest resemblance to bargaining;
      • – dissuasion by local employers of management from belonging to a representative organization;
      • – refusal by local employers to deduct union fees;
      • – direct consultation by employers and employers’ associations of management with regard to their labour conditions, thereby failing to recognize their association;
      • – financing by the Government of Quebec of the body charged with representing managers with regard to insurance and retirement; suspension of this financing (in March and April 1994) in order to induce the association to abandon proceedings against the Government;
      • – discriminatory double exaction (Bill 102) for managerial staff whose associations had not abandoned proceedings against the Government (letter of 18 May of the Associate Secretary, Labour Relations and Human Resources Management);
      • – only those associations that signed the “accord” of 1994 have the right to manage insurance plans and thereby fulfil their responsibilities in representing their members before the Government;
      • – it is rendered less desirable to be a member of the association and to pay the fees (“Why pay for what is merely consultation?” “Why pay fees if there is no collective bargaining?”);
      • – many other actions which, if they were taken against non-management “employees”, would be punishable under the Labour Code.
    • 428. The complainant organizations also stress that working conditions have been altered on numerous occasions without any consultation of the associations or using evasive methods of direct consultation with their members by telephone or email. This goes to show that the form of recognition currently afforded to these associations is clearly insufficient and does not facilitate real discussion or collective bargaining.
14. 429. As regards trade union law, the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced its judgment in the case Dunmore v. Ontario in December 2001. In this case, the Court had been called upon to pronounce a judgment on the legality of a clause in the legislation of the Province of Ontario excluding agricultural workers from the legal provisions regarding labour relations. The Supreme Court stated that to deny agricultural workers the benefit of a law instituting provisions for collective labour relations amounted to an attack on freedom of association and violated paragraph 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, the Court concluded that there was no justification for this violation in a free and democratic society, and that the clause in the legislation restricting the right of agricultural workers to freedom of association was, consequently, unconstitutional. The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association made a similar statement on the matter [Case No. 1900, 308th Report, paras. 139-194] and recalled the same principles with relation to school principals in the Province of Ontario [Case No. 1951, 311th Report, paras. 170 234].
15. 430. In view of the evidence provided, the complainant organizations request the Committee to come to the conclusion that the legislation of Quebec does not comply with the standards and principles of freedom of association in this regard, since it does not permit managerial personnel to form real trade unions, does not give them a genuine right to bargain collectively, fails to provide a mechanism for settling disputes to compensate for the prohibition on strike action and does not offer adequate protection against interference or domination by employers. The complainant organizations add that they would not oppose legislation prohibiting managerial personnel from joining trade unions which represented non-management workers, as long as they enjoyed the same rights as these other unions, i.e. as long as they were able to organize in their own unions and conclude collective agreements. Lastly, they stress their willingness for the Committee to intervene in such a way as would allow the parties involved to meet in the context of negotiations to bring about a settlement of this dispute.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 431. In its communication of 23 April 2004, the Government of Quebec submits essentially: that the legal provisions and the procedures applicable to the complainant associations are in conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that, although managers are excluded from the general system in place established by the Labour Code, they are nevertheless covered by a structured system allowing them to exercise their freedom of association, i.e. the recognition of their right to associate and to establish their employment conditions; that they do enjoy adequate protection against acts of domination and interference by employers; and that it is not necessary to establish a special disputes settlement procedure for the managers concerned.
   • The legal framework
2. 432. The rules on collective labour relations are contained in the Labour Code (hereafter “the Code”), article 3 of which provides that “Every employee has the right to belong to the association of employees of his choice, and to participate in the formation, activities and management of such association.” The scope of the Code is circumscribed by the definition of the term “employee” which does not include “a person who … is employed as manager, superintendent, foreman or representative of the employer in his relations with his employees”. Therefore, employees who exercise managerial functions or represent employers in their relations with employees will not be considered as employees within the meaning of the Code. The constitutive elements of the managing power are, inter alia, the power to assign work, to control its execution and elaboration, and to evaluate its results. This distinction has existed for 60 years in the labour legislations of Quebec, Canadian and other provincial jurisdictions and elsewhere in North America.
3. 433. As regards internal law, Quebec adopted in 1975 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides in article 3 that “every person enjoys fundamental freedoms such as … freedom of association”. It is therefore considered as a fundamental freedom and is also protected by article 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
   • Judicial interpretation
4. 434. The right to organize has been given a liberal interpretation by courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has applied these principles in labour relations matters. In 1999, it ruled in the Delisle case that the fact that a group of workers is excluded from a law governing collective labour relations does not necessarily constitute a violation of the freedom to associate provided for in the Canadian Charter, as the protection thus given existed irrespective of any legislative framework; in that case, the Court considered that a group of workers had not been prevented from establishing an association of workers in spite of its exclusion from the legislative framework, since they had been able to establish an organization. The situation of managers concerned here is similar, since the associations and the National Confederation of Managerial Staff of Quebec (CNCQ) exist and, in fact, do represent managers in their labour relations with the employers concerned.
5. 435. As regards the complainants’ argument based on the Dunmore case, the Government emphasizes that this judgement concerned agricultural workers excluded from the Ontario law governing collective labour relations. These workers brought evidence that they were unable to establish an association as they were scattered on a wide geographical area and had little financial means to organize themselves without state protection. It is in that specific context that the Supreme Court concluded that there had been a violation of the right to associate guaranteed by the Canadian Charter since the workers in question could not establish an organization without a basic legal protection. Therefore, the Dunmore case cannot apply to managers in this case since they are not isolated and powerless workers unable to regroup themselves in order to defend their interests, and are represented by duly constituted associations that are regrouped in a confederation. They therefore fully enjoy the freedom of association guaranteed by the Charter. In addition, there is no law or regulation that prohibits the creation of managers’ associations; quite the contrary, the Professional Syndicates Act provides a legal basis for the constitution of associations.
   • The employers and associations involved
6. 436. The Quebec health and social services sector comprises 228,000 unionized workers; it is a decentralized parapublic sector composed of 468 establishments and 18 bodies which are all separate employers. The Association of Senior Managerial Staff of Health and Social Services (ACSSSS) regroups the “senior managers” as defined in the regulation concerning some employment conditions of managers of national boards and health and social services establishments (hereafter “the Consolidated Regulation”). There are 1,574 senior managers, 895 of whom are members of the ACSSSS. Under article 3 of the Consolidated Regulation, a senior manager is “a manager appointed by the governing body of an employer, whose position is at a senior level of management, according to the duties set for that post in the organization chart of the employer, and whose evaluation class is in conformity with the classification standards established by the minister”. In fact, senior managers of the health and social services sector exercise functions of directors in all the activity branches of the health sector; they are responsible for the planning, assignment, control and evaluation of work, and make decisions concerning the management of all their human, financial and material resources involving their employers’ responsibility. The objects of the ACSSSS are the development and promotion of the employment conditions of senior managers of the health and social services sector; it represents senior managers in the elaboration and implementation of their employment conditions, provides its members with individual assistance and representation, and helps them in the exercise of rights and recourses flowing from their status and employment conditions, including before competent jurisdictional and arbitration bodies.
7. 437. The Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ) is a state society with commercial objects, which counts more than 6,000 employees and 398 branches throughout the Province of Quebec; 355 managers are members of the Association of Branch Managers of the Société des alcools du Québec (ADDS/SAQ). According to the manual of employment conditions: “under the responsibility of the regional director, branch managers … plan, organize and control the operation of a SAQ branch, in order to provide clients with a high-level service by applying commercial programmes and making optimal use of resources, to maximize sales and profitability of the branch, while taking into account the standards and policies of the enterprise and its specific environment”. Directors have a role of entrepreneur and manager and represent the employer at several levels: they are in charge of recruitment of staff and may impose disciplinary sanctions; they represent the employer for the interpretation of the collective agreement, for administration acts and with the local business community; they are responsible for stock supply and monies coming from sales; they must prepare the budget of their outlet and ensure its implementation. The ADDS/SAQ regroups 355 members and is recognized under the Professional Syndicates Act. Under its Constitution, it must “promote the general well-being of SAQ branch managers, and their financial, social, moral and intellectual interests. While taking into account the importance of the duties of these persons in the community, the association strives to obtain, by legitimate means, the best possible employment conditions for its members”. The constitution of the ADDS/SAQ has been incorporated into the manual of employment conditions of branch managers. The ADDS/SAQ commits itself “to ensure that all decisions and policies in favour of their well-being and competence, will be fully and uniformly applied; to ensure that the enterprise develop their competence; to take an active part in the orientations and decisions of the enterprise, while maintaining its autonomy; and to be the direct link between its members and the management of the SAQ”. The ADDS/SAQ defends the interests of its members as regards the elaboration of employment conditions and management policies of the enterprise, and provides them with individual representation services in case of dispute.
8. 438. The Société des casinos du Québec (SCQ) is a subsidiary of the Société des loteries du Québec. It operates three casinos, located in Montreal, Hull and Pointe-au-Pic and has more than 3,500 employees. The members of the Association of Managerial Staff of the Société des casinos du Québec (ACSCQ) are exclusively “inspectors”; they control, supervise and evaluate unionized employees. The ACSCQ Montreal and Hull sections have 135 and 38 members, respectively. The objects of the ACSCQ are: to represent its members; to defend their social, economic and professional interests; in particular to ensure the application of their employment conditions; to promote their individual and collective training programmes; to examine improvements to he brought to employment conditions; and ensure that the employer complies with provisions relating to the employment conditions of staff.
9. 439. The managers represented by the complainant associations thus constitute a relatively small number of employees who have, in their respective spheres, management powers to assign, control, supervise and evaluate the work of unionized employees. They represent the employer in various respects; some of them even have the power to hire and dismiss staff. This is why they are not covered by the Labour Code.
   • Legal and institutional recognition of associations
10. 440. The complainant associations were established under the Professional Syndicates Act (hereafter “the Act”), article 6 of which provides that such syndicates “shall have exclusively for object the study, defence and promotion of the economic, social and moral interests of their members”. One of the basic objectives of this Act, adopted in 1924, was to give clear legal status to unions. Being thus granted legal personality, the complainant associations have rights and privileges for the realization of their object. Article 9 of the Act provides that “professional syndicates may appear before the courts” and “enter into contracts or agreements with all other syndicates, societies, undertakings or persons, respecting the attainment of their objects and particularly such as relate to the collective conditions of labour”. Article 20 provides in addition that “syndicates, constituted or not under this Act, unions and federations of syndicates may constitute themselves into a confederation” and article 21 that these unions and federations “shall enjoy all the rights and powers conferred upon professional syndicates”. The three associations in this case have used this provision by adhering to the Quebec National Confederation of Managers, itself established under this Act.
11. 441. In addition to their legal recognition, the associations in question enjoy an institutional recognition from respective employers, under protocols of agreement or government decrees:
    • – the ACSSSS is recognized since 1980 by decree “as representative for industrial relations purposes” of the employees it represents and article 3 of the Consolidated Regulation mentions the ACSSSS by name in the definition of “managers’ association”;
    • – the ADDS/SAQ is recognized by the SAQ with which it has signed a memorandum of agreement concerning its recognition as representative, for industrial relations purposes, of all SAQ branch managers, and which is incorporated in their manual of employment conditions;
    • – the ACSCQ is recognized since 1997 by the SCQ, with which it has signed two memoranda of agreement (for the Montreal and Hull casinos) concerning its “recognition, for industrial relations purposes, as representative of the inspectors who are members of the Association”.
12. 442. That institutional recognition carries with it concrete effects for each association. The first, and most important, one is to formalize their status as sole representative of managers in their relations with employers, both for the determination of employment conditions and the defence of their interests when an individual grievance is submitted to arbitration. In addition, the instruments of recognition provide for check-off facilities for association fees. The Government gives the following details as regards each association.
13. 443. The recognition instruments of the ACSSSS provide that it must be consulted before the determination or modification of employment conditions of the senior managers it represents. The instruments also deal with local management policies: article 6 of the Consolidated Regulation states that each employer of the health sector is obliged to consult managers and their representatives before said local policies are decided. When a disagreement between a manager and the employer concerning the interpretation or application of the Consolidated Regulation is submitted to an arbitrator, the manager may be accompanied by a representative of his association; the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding for both the manager and the employer. The Consolidated Regulation also contains specific provisions for check-off facilities by the employer.
14. 444. The memorandum of agreement concerning the ADDS/SAQ provides that it will be consulted by the employer “before the determination or modification of employment conditions of the branch managers” it represents. That provision is incorporated in the manual of employment conditions, which also establishes the right of managers to be accompanied by a representative of their association when they are summoned to a disciplinary interview. The memorandum provides that the SAQ must deduct the regular ADDS/SAQ contribution from the pay of all managers. The SAQ goes further than the provisions of the protocol by providing the ADDS/SAQ with the list of all outlet directors, every 28 days. The manual also provides that the ADDS/SAQ must be consulted in case of technological changes in the enterprise.
15. 445. The memoranda of agreement concerning the ACSCQ provides that the employer must consult it “before the determination or modification of employment conditions of the inspectors of casinos” and that the Société des casinos must deduct and transfer the contribution at the rate established and communicated by the ACSCQ.
16. 446. The Government concludes from the above that, even though managers are not covered by the Code, they may join associations legally constituted under the Act, some of which have existed for several decades, to defend and promote their interests. They are regrouped within the National Confederation of Managerial Staff of Quebec (CNCQ). They are recognized by their respective employers under a common system, through memoranda of agreement or decrees. That recognition, which has never been denied since the initial act of recognition, gives them a unique status as representative of their members, notably as regards the determination of employment conditions. The associations’ capacity to represent the individual interests of managers is even prescribed by regulation as regards the ACSSSS and the ADDS/SAQ. In addition, the recognition instruments provide for check-off facilities, which ensures a secure and regular financing to associations.
17. 447. As regards compliance with Convention No. 87, the Government submits that the distinction made in this case is in line with the position of the Committee on Freedom on Association when it states that “It is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of Article 2 of Convention No. 87 to deny managerial or supervisory employees the right to belong to the same trade unions as other workers” [Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, 4th edition, para. 231] since it respects their right to establish their own associations of managers. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations also stated that provisions which prohibit managerial staff “from joining trade unions in which other workers are represented are not necessarily incompatible with the Convention, provided they had the right to establish their own organizations and that the right to belong to those organizations was restricted to persons performing senior managerial or decision-making functions”. The Government therefore submits that it complies with the provisions of Convention No. 87 in this respect. Managers associations exist and effectively exercise freedom of association since they also represent their members in their collective relationship with employers as regards the determination of employment conditions. The Government then provides, for each sector, detailed information on the procedures for the determination of employment conditions and the results obtained.
    • Employment conditions of managers
    • of the health and social sector
18. 448. The Ministry holds exchanges on employment conditions with the representatives of the establishments and those of the ACSSSS since the late 1970s; at that time, no employment condition was in writing and consultations concerned all matters [workers of the Health sector in Quebec are not public servants (“fonctionnaires”) as defined by the Public Service Act, but they are part of the parapublic sector]. Since 1983, the Minister of Health and Social Services is empowered by the Act to regulate the employment conditions of managers of the sector; all the relevant regulations affirm the binding nature of employment conditions and define the parties’ rights and obligations. In order to structure the process, two consultative committees on industrial relations (CCRP) have been established; their mandate and composition are mentioned in the Consolidated Regulation: “Two consultative committees on industrial relations are established, to discuss problems of interpretation and application of employment conditions, modification projects of such conditions, and any other related issue. … These two committees are composed of representatives of the associations, the employers and the Ministry: the first committee includes ACSSSS representatives, and the second one includes representatives of the employer and of the ACSSSS. Either party may call a meeting.” When the modifications considered are important, or when it is envisaged to introduce a new work regime, the CCRP meetings are more frequent and more regular, until the consultations are finalized; discussions may sometimes last for several months. Before calling a CCRP meeting, the directorate of the ministry in charge of relations with managerial staff ensures that representatives of the associations are available. All participants have their say in deciding the items to be placed on the agenda. The draft modifications and all documents are transmitted before the meeting to representatives of the employers and associations, so that they may examine them and prepare their comments. All participants may present draft modifications. The first regulations on employment conditions, dating back to 1983, dealt with employment conditions considered as essential such as protection measures in case of redundancy, and redress avenues in case of termination. The gradual implementation of the regulatory process contributed to an increasing and formalizing of exchanges between the Government and the associations representing the managers and the establishments. This global process has allowed the putting into place of a complete framework of employment conditions for managers of the health sector, in constant consultation with their associations, including the ACSSSS.
19. 449. The overall result of these talks, over more than 20 years, is a bulky set of rules which covers the following topics (that are also offered to managers and unionized workers of other public and parapublic sectors): industrial relations; check-off facilities; local management policies; pay; collective insurance package; parental rights; differed pay leave; gradual pre-retirement; training and development; protection measures in case of redundancy; provisions concerning end of employment; redress concerning pay insurance provisions; interpretation and application of employment conditions; redress in case of termination. The various rules are then adopted and incorporated in the Consolidated Regulation, which also provides that each employer (468 establishments and 18 bodies) must adopt local management policies, after consultation of managers’ representatives. These local policies cover the following topics: staffing of managers’ positions; performance appraisal; training and development; personal file; holiday; social and paid leave; leave without pay; leave for professional matters and public appointments; overtime in exceptional circumstances; redress procedures on the application of these management policies. This part of the Consolidated Regulation also establishes guidelines guiding the employer in the elaboration of some management policies, and provisions concerning violence at work, sexual harassment and discrimination. The Consolidated Regulation, which evolves constantly, constitutes the compendium of the procedures established between employers and managers, describes all the binding employment conditions agreed upon between them, and provides the framework for the elaboration of management policies.
    • Employment conditions of managers
    • of the Société des alcools du Québec
20. 450. The process of determination of employment conditions at the SAQ is less complex than that in the heath sector as it concerns a far lesser number of employees, but it is nonetheless well structured. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding and the manual of employment conditions, high-level representatives of the SAQ meet the representatives of the ADDS/SAQ on a quarterly basis, to discuss the corporate policies and the modifications of the conditions of employment of branch managers. Every three months, the ADDS/SAQ submits to the vice-president of sales the subjects it wishes to address during the meeting. On the basis of the subjects proposed by the SAQ and the ADDS/SAQ, the SAQ directorate prepares the agenda and transmits it to the participants a few days before the meeting. In addition, the ADDS/SAQ may communicate at any time with the director of sales, which it does in particular for regular management issues concerning some managers, or for modifications to management procedures. For instance, during the past year, the ADDS/SAQ was able to place the following items on the agenda: pay and retirement package of managers; psychological health at work; reconciliation of work and family obligations; and many other subjects that have been addressed during the meetings, at the request of the ADDS/SAQ or the SAQ.
21. 451. As for results, the corporate policy at SAQ is that managers enjoy at least the same employment conditions as unionized employees. The manual of employment conditions covers a wide spectrum of matters: definition of the status of branch managers (both regular managers, and those on trial); professional ethics standards; principles of pay and annual revision; salary rules, participation and bonus packages; classification of posts and branches; premiums and social benefits; hours of work; various allocations; annual leave, days off; income protection; retirement plan; staffing and internal mobility rules; work appraisal; disciplinary and administrative measures; and recognition of the ADDS/SAQ. Some employment conditions of the managers differ from those established in collective agreements covering unionized employees, for example: workers have accepted the principle of pay increments identical to those applicable in the public service, whereas managers have preferred a lower indexation rate but with a possibility of bonus; managers have accepted a trade-off between 13 paid sick leave days and an additional contribution of the SAQ to their collective insurance plan, whereas workers preferred to keep the possibility to accumulate sick leave credits.
22. 452. Concerning the specific allegations in the complaint of ADDS/SAQ, the Government states that the SAQ has respected the consultation process and that the discussions made it possible to adjust the proposals made earlier. For example, taking into account the demands made by the ADDS/SAQ, the employer incorporated the value of overtime in the salary of branch managers; as the ADDS/SAQ had submitted that a group of managers assigned to a special project had not benefited from that measure, it was agreed to raise the adjustment from 3.37 per cent to 3.87 per cent. The ADDS/SAQ also alleges that the SAQ has modified the pay structure of branch managers without consultation; however, a document of ADDS/SAQ, entitled “New pay policy”, introduced in 2002 during the quarterly meetings, demonstrates that the revision of pay structure has been addressed. The consultation process continued during the elaboration and implementation of the salary policy and the representatives of the ADDS/SAQ and the SAQ discussed the case of all branch managers who requested a pay increment. The ADDS/SAQ document on the new pay policy indicates that the “main objectives of the ADDS/SAQ have been attained” and also mentions major gains. Finally, the SAQ has not modified any work schedule of branch managers. As regards annual leave, the manual of employment conditions has not been modified, except that leave is restricted to three consecutive weeks, in conformity with the manual of employment conditions. In summary, the whole process agreed between the SAQ and the ADDS/SAQ constitutes a real and formal mechanism of exchanges, through which the conditions of employment and management practices of branch managers are discussed, modified and improved.
    • Employment conditions of managers
    • of the Quebec casinos society
23. 453. The Société des casinos du Québec (SCQ) and the ACSCQ have agreed under article 1(b) of the applicable Memoranda of Understanding “to meet at the request of either party, to discuss their concerns”. In practice, formal meetings take place approximately every two months with one of the sections (Montreal or Hull). The agenda concerns employment conditions and other subjects, such as the problems in regular relations with other levels of the organization. The employer’s representatives may meet on demand with the representatives of the ACSCQ, at varying intervals. As regards the results of this process, the employee manual contains the general employment conditions of inspectors and the policies in force at the Montreal casino: hours of work; pay; leave; sick leave; work appraisal; staffing; training and development; health and safety at work; collective insurance and retirement plans (a similar document is being prepared for the Hull casino). One of the most contentious issues concerns work schedules: about ten meetings were necessary to come to an agreement; the process was positive since a major reorganization of work schedules will be implemented, and could be applied in other locations if successful. The global compensation package and employment conditions of managers of the SCQ are better than those of unionized employees. Although the process established between the SCQ and the ACSCQ is a recent one; it provides a formal basis, which is respected by the parties and ensures permanent discussions and the improvement of employment conditions.
24. 454. The Government concludes from the above that the procedures for the determination of employment conditions of managers are adequate and have produced satisfactory results. The fact that the associations adhere to the results obtained confirms the credibility of these mechanisms; the associations may now prevail themselves with their members of a body of employment conditions that compare favourably with collective agreements in the public sector. The improvement of employment conditions of managers in this sector results in particular from the fact that they enjoy the advantages already granted to unionized employees and hold privileged positions in their respective organizations. The existing mechanisms allow them to obtain good working conditions; they constitute a structured, binding and permanent process, elaborated in collaboration with the executive of associations and adapted to the particular work organization of each sector. This set of professional relations processes has demonstrated its flexibility through its evolution, in terms of innovation and search for solutions, which guarantees its future success.
    • Protection against acts of interference
    • and domination by employers
25. 455. The Government submits that the mechanisms available to managers in this respect give them adequate protection, as section 425 of the Criminal Code provides that: “Everyone who … being an employer or the agent of an employer, wrongfully and without lawful authority … (a) refuses to employ, or dismisses from his employment any person for the reason only that the person is a member of a lawful trade union or of a lawful association …; (b) seeks, by intimidation, threat of loss of position or employment, or by causing actual loss of position or employment, or by threatening or imposing any pecuniary penalty, to compel workmen or employees to abstain from belonging to a trade union, association or combination to which they have a lawful right to belong … is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.” The Criminal Code provides for such offences “a fine up to 2,000 dollars, a penalty of imprisonment of up to six months, or both”. The Government thus submits that it respects the provisions of Convention No. 98 on protection against interference and intimidation by employers, since the associations enjoy adequate protection in this respect.
    • Disputes settlement procedure
26. 456. Finally, the associations challenge the Government’s position to deny managers the right to appropriate disputes settlement procedures in case of deadlock in negotiations; they argue in particular that the Government should establish a specific disputes settlement procedure for managers, including recourse to binding arbitration as a final step. The Government already underlined in this respect that the employment conditions of managers are determined under a procedure formally recognized by the parties, which obliges employers to consult the representatives of duly established organizations and to put committees into place. The results that have been obtained demonstrate the efficiency of this process, since the employment conditions of managers, as reflected in the various regulations or Memoranda of Understanding are, by nature, comparable to collective agreements. The process works well and does not appear to raise significant problems, mainly because the parties constantly seek to find solutions for the determination or improvement of employment conditions. Managers who want to improve their situation may use their strategic position in their respective organizations. As representatives of the employer with the workers, they have a direct line of communication with the highest hierarchical levels of their organization and can therefore easily use their power and influence to settle disputes. In addition, their associations may find solutions to possible disputes during consultations. This dual avenue provides managers with an adequate mechanism for the defence of their economic and social interests.
27. 457. The Government concludes that this dual system of labour relations, similar in nature with the ones existing in Canada and North America, ensures that the complainant associations may exercise their freedom of association. They enjoy legal guarantees as regards their recognition and protection against acts of interference and domination by employers, backed by formal procedures for the determination of their members’ employment conditions. The Government therefore concludes that it respects its international obligations arising from Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It attaches to its arguments a bulky set of documents, as well as the relevant legislative, regulatory and contractual texts.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 458. The Committee notes that this case concerns the provisions of labour law for managerial personnel laid down in Quebec labour legislation. The complainant organizations allege: that the Labour Code excludes managerial staff from its sphere of application and thus prohibits them from becoming organized trade unions; that they cannot take part in genuine collective bargaining on the working conditions of their members and have no mechanism for settling labour disputes in the absence of the right to strike; and that the right of association of managerial personnel is not afforded adequate legislative protection against employer interference. For its part, the Government states: that the legal provisions and the procedures applicable to the complainant associations are in conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98; that, although managers are excluded from the general system in place established by the Labour Code, they are nevertheless covered by a structured system allowing them to exercise their freedom of association, i.e. the recognition of the right to associate and to establish their employment conditions; that they enjoy adequate protection against acts of domination and interference by employers; and that it is not necessary to establish a special disputes settlement procedure for the managers concerned.
2. 459. With regard to the exclusion of managerial personnel from the scope of the Labour Code, the Committee notes that the restrictive definition of the term “employee” effectively prevents managerial staff from forming trade unions in the sense of the Code, with all the strict rights that flow from it, in particular the right to negotiate collective agreements within the framework of the Labour Code. While noting that managerial personnel can form associations, which enjoy significant prerogatives (see below), the Committee recalls that the only exceptions permitted by Convention No. 87 concern the armed forces and the police, and emphasizes that this exclusion must be defined restrictively [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 219-222].
3. 460. Furthermore, noting that the national case law has provided an extensive interpretation of the concept of managerial personnel, the Committee recalls that it is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of Article 2 of Convention No. 87 to deny managerial or supervisory employees the right to belong to the same trade unions as other workers, on condition that two requirements are met: first, that such workers have the right to form their own associations to defend their interests and, second, that the categories of such staff are not defined so broadly as to weaken the organizations of other workers in the enterprise or branch of activity by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership [see Digest, op. cit., para. 231].
4. 461. The Committee also notes the judgement of the highest court of the land in relation to the exclusion of agricultural workers in the Province of Ontario, to the effect that this exclusion constituted a violation of freedom of association which could not be justified in a free and democratic society under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Dunmore v. Ontario, 2001, S.C.C. 94). The Committee also notes that, in its ruling, the Supreme Court mentioned Articles 2 and 10 of Convention No. 87 with particular reference to the expressions “without distinction whatsoever” and “any organization of workers” [J. Bastarrache, para. 27] and also referred to the decision of the Committee in Case No. 1900 [308th Report, paras. 139-194] with regard to this principle. As regards the Delisle case, the Committee notes that this judgement of the Supreme Court concerned policemen (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) a category of worker whose exclusion is permitted under Convention No. 87.
5. 462. The Committee also notes that the managerial staff associations of Quebec have spent more than 25 years attempting to achieve recognition of their trade union rights under the Labour Code, without tangible results, and that what dialogue there was has now ground to a halt.
6. 463. In view of all of the above, the Committee requests the Government to amend the relevant sections in the Labour Code of Quebec so that managerial personnel enjoy the right to benefit from the general provisions of collective labour law and form associations that enjoy the same rights, prerogatives and means of redress as other workers’ associations.
7. 464. The Committee’s conclusions on the other aspects of the complaint follow, with appropriate adaptations, from the conclusion above.
8. 465. As regards the recognition of the associations and of their right to bargain collectively, the Committee notes that, under the current system, the complainant associations do enjoy a real form of recognition by their respective employers and participate in the elaboration of their members’ employment conditions. These contractual arrangements, therefore, constitute an embryonic form of legal recognition, but one which is not enshrined in a legislative text. The examples given by the complainant associations demonstrate that this recognition is precarious, that it varies among different employers and workplaces, and that working conditions are not codified in real collective agreements accompanied by the relevant rights and guarantees. The precariousness of this situation and the uncertainty which it creates in labour relations result from the absence of real legal recognition, within the meaning of the Labour Code, of managerial personnel as “employees” and of their associations with all the rights that would accompany such recognition.
9. 466. As regards the issue of the settlement of collective disputes, the exclusion of managerial personnel from the Labour Code means that they do not have access to the usual mechanisms and forms of redress laid down in the Code (conciliation, arbitration, strike). In this regard, the Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 475]. This right may be restricted or prohibited: (1) in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) [see Digest, op. cit., para. 526]. The evidence adduced shows that the members of the complainant associations are not public servants, and that the duties of the members of at least two of the complainant associations cannot be included in a strict definition of essential services: namely, the inspectors in casinos, who are members of the ACSCQ; and SAQ branch managers, who are members of the ADDS/SAQ. The members of the ACSSSS are in a different position in this respect, as some of them carry out their duties in hospitals, and the Committee has recognized that such services may be considered essential. As a result, the Committee requests the Government to take the desired steps to ensure that the managerial personnel concerned have the same access to mechanisms for collective bargaining and dispute settlement as other workers, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association.
10. 467. With regard to measures of protection against acts of employer interference and domination, the allegations show that this protection leaves much to be desired. Attempts have been made to reduce the amount of leave granted to attend to association activities; requests for such leave have been refused; employers have directly consulted managerial staff, bypassing their associations; local employers have discouraged management from belonging to these associations; employers have refused to deduct membership fees; there has been discriminatory treatment in the choice of associations allowed to participate jointly in the administration of insured pension plans. In the final analysis, it is the opinion of the Committee that all of these actions cannot but have the effect of leading current and potential members of the associations to wonder why they should belong to them, since collective bargaining and related rights are not covered by the Code, and since there is no real legal protection against acts which would be punishable by the Code if perpetrated against employees who are covered by the general collective system of labour relations. The provisions of the Criminal Code mentioned by the Government in this respect are not applied by a specialized jurisdiction (such as a labour commission or a labour court) and, in addition do not offer the same level of protection given the necessary onus and degree of proof. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the legislation and take the required measures to ensure that the managerial personnel concerned have the same access to means of redress and mechanisms of protection as other workers covered by the Labour Code against acts of employer interference and domination, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association.
11. 468. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the development of all the aspects of the situation mentioned above, and, in particular, of the measures taken to ensure that legislation is brought into line with the principles of freedom of association.
12. 469. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 470. In light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to amend the Labour Code of Quebec in order that managerial personnel enjoy the rights flowing from the general provisions of collective labour law and may establish associations that enjoy the same rights, prerogatives and means of redress as other workers’ organizations, with particular regard to mechanisms for collective bargaining and dispute settlement and protection against acts of employer domination or interference, all in accordance with the principles of freedom of association.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the development of all aspects of the situation mentioned above and, in particular, of the measures taken to ensure that legislation is brought into line with the principles of freedom of association.
   • (c) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case.

Z. Annex

• Background of the approaches made by managerial staff to the Government of Quebec
• August 1977: Creation of the Conference of Associations of Managerial Staff in the Pubic and Parapublic Sectors. Specific legislation is requested that would recognize the freedom of association of managerial staff and protect those who exercise that right.
• Beginning of the 1980s: Instead of recognizing the right of management to collective bargaining, as it does for its other employees, the Government passes various decrees recognizing the representative associations of management personnel in the public sector, educational establishments and health and social services establishments. In these decrees, the Government commits to consult the managerial associations it has recognized before any alteration is made to working conditions. Consequently, state enterprises (SAQ, Hydro-Quebec, etc.) follow suit with regard to their own management.
  1992. 1992: Certain management associations in the parapublic sector (i.e. not including management personnel in the public services) carry out an assessment of the alternative system to collective bargaining and conclude that the following changes need to be made:
        • - the consultation system must be replaced by a system of genuine collective bargaining;
        • - all managerial staff in Quebec must be covered, including management in private enterprises and no longer only those personnel working in the parapublic sector;
        • - the Government of Quebec must adopt specific legislation or, at least, amend the Labour Code so that it no longer excludes management personnel.
  1993. The associations then found the National Confederation of Managerial Staff of Quebec and, in December of the same year, send a request to the Prime Minister, demanding once again that freedom of association be afforded to management.
  1993. 1993: The Government sets out its policy, namely, that there is absolutely no possibility of granting managerial staff the right to bargain collectively or even of studying the possibility of such a course of action.
  21. 21 March 1994: On the eve of the legislative elections in Quebec, the Confederation asks the three political parties to express their opinion on its request to ensure freedom of association for all managerial personnel in Quebec. The party in power repeats the position of the Government; the Parti québécois replies saying, “the CNCQ’s request seems more than reasonable to us and any future government formed by this party will commit to tackling the issue of freedom of association for management personnel as a priority”; the third party on the lists does not reply.
• June 1994: The International Confederation of Executive Staff (of which the CNCQ is a member) formally brings the issue of the non-compliance of Quebec labour legislation with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 in respect of managerial staff to the attention of the 81st International Labour Conference.
• November 1994: The CNCQ reminds the new Minister of Labour of the commitments made by his party. The Minister of Labour is also informed that the CNCQ and some of its affiliate organizations are planning to submit two complaints to the ILO: the first concerning the refusal of the Government to allow managerial personnel access to collective bargaining; and the second concerning attempts to dominate and interfere on the part of the Treasury Board in 1993-94.
  1995. 1995: The CNCQ meets with the Minister of Labour and submits a draft bill to amend the Labour Code, ending the exclusion of managerial personnel. The Minister requests the Consulting Council for Labour and the Workforce (CCTMO) to give an opinion on the CNCQ’s proposal.
• February 1996: The CNCQ meets with the CCTMO.
• Summer 1996: The new Minister of Labour is informed that the trade union representatives of the CCTMO are unanimously in favour of the proposal submitted by the CNCQ.
  1998. 1998: The Minister proposes setting up a research committee on the freedom of association of managerial personnel. The CNCQ reacts positively, but suggests that the Committee should request resources from the ILO. In the event, the Committee is never established.
• June 1999: At the general discussion of the ILO Committee on the Application of Standards, in Geneva, the Government representative of Canada admits that the national legislation of Canada – and that of Quebec – do not comply with international labour standards. With regard to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the representative of the Government of Canada first notes that the only exceptions permitted by this Convention are the armed forces, the police and high-level state officials. Consequently, he recognizes that all other employees “must have access to statutory machinery providing for collective bargaining”. He also admits that there exist several jurisdictions in Canada which deny the right to collective bargaining to other groups of workers than those whose exclusion is permitted by Convention No. 98. Even if these excluded workers are not formally denied access to voluntary collective bargaining, “the fact that they were not covered by a statutory regime had been interpreted by the ILO as being non-compliance with Convention No. 98”. The affiliated organizations renew their approaches to the new Prime Minister.
  21. 21 June 1999: The CNCQ issues a formal demand to the Minister of Justice before submitting its complaint to the ILO (a renewed demand that international labour Conventions and other international instruments on freedom of association be respected).
  2000. 2000: The Minister of Labour eventually meets with CNCQ representatives after several requests by that organization for a meeting.
  2001. 2001-02: The Minister of Labour refuses to invite CNCQ representatives to appear before the Parliamentary Committees responsible for studying the draft bills to amend the Labour Code. There is no possibility for freedom of association for managerial staff to be included in these draft bills.
• Since that time, the dialogue, which was already weak, has dried up completely.