Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 284, Novembre 1992

Cas no 1604 (Canada) - Date de la plainte: 31-OCT. -91 - Clos

1. 286. In communications dated 31 October and 6 December 1991, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Canada (Manitoba), on behalf of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees (NUPGE) and the Manitoba Government Employees Association (MGEA). The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Public Services International (PSI) expressed their support to the complaint in communications dated respectively 8 and 12 November 1991.
2. 287. The federal Government, in a communication of 11 June 1992, transmitted the observations and information from the Government of Manitoba, dated 6 April 1992.
3. 288. 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), or the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 289. In its communication of 31 October 1991, the complainant organisation alleges that the Government of Manitoba violated Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 151 and 154 by enacting, on 26 July 1991, Bill No. 70, the Public Sector Compensation Management Act, hereafter called "the Act". For ease of reference, the main substantive provisions of the Act, in particular those quoted and relied on by the complainant and the Government, are reproduced in the Annex to this document.
2. 290. The Act imposes a one-year wage freeze on all public employees and ends collective bargaining in the public sector. While the Government announced that the purpose of the Act was to protect taxpayers by maintaining public sector wages at their current level for one year, it in fact used its employees as scapegoats for the perceived economic difficulties of the province. In fact, the Government introduced that legislation in order to avoid its own independent system of arbitration. Furthermore, the Act was introduced in a high-handed way in that there was no real consultation with the bargaining agents.
3. 291. In December 1990, the Manitoba Government began negotiating with its employees by introducing public sector wage guidelines of 0 to 3 per cent. After several months in negotiations in which the Government's wage offer was solely decreased to a wage freeze, the MGEA, the bargaining unit for the employees of the Manitoba Government, decided to have its membership vote on the union's recommendation that the dispute be settled through binding arbitration. The MGEA's membership voted 97 per cent in favour of the union's recommendation. Realising that its "offer" of the wage freeze would not be supported by an independent arbitration system, the Government proceeded with Bill 70 which basically outlawed the arbitration process, as well as collective bargaining within the public sector workforce. The employer could not achieve what it wanted to through the normal process of collective bargaining. It therefore changed the rules in the middle of the process by abusing its powers as a legislative body.
4. 292. The Act freezes all wages and benefits for one year by extending the affected workers' collective agreements for that period. This freeze also covers contracts reached under binding arbitration or through the province's final offer selection legislation since September 1990. The effect of the Act will be to deprive affected workers and their unions of their right to collective bargaining for as long as the law remains in effect. Bargaining, arbitration and of course the right to strike, will be pointless or prohibited. The legislation, which is aimed at the lowest paid workers and excludes the most highly paid, such as judges and Government paid doctors, is unfair in that it freezes public sector workers' pay, while allowing prices and unfair tax practices to continue.
5. 293. The Act is all-encompassing since it "prevails over every other act, every regulation, every arbitral or other award or decision and every obligation, right, claim, agreement or arrangement of any kind" (section 4). In addition, the definition of compensation rates includes the rate of pay to which an employee is entitled under a collective agreement and premiums, allowances and benefits of any kind. Therefore every aspect of public sector workers' wage packages are affected.
6. 294. Section 2(3) which deals with agreements not signed before 3 June 1991 is particularly offensive because it disregards the independence and value of third-party intervention (arbitration). It actually operates as a penalty provision for those parties who for whatever reason have not concluded their bargaining prior to the introduction of this Act.
7. 295. Section 6(2) of the Act takes away previously negotiated increases by simply making the provisions of collective agreements inoperative. Section 6(3) disregards agreements reached through arbitration or final offer selection. The only exemptions to the freeze of compensation set out in section 7 concern: promotion or reclassification; the operation of the Pay Equity Act; the operation of regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council is empowered to make.
8. 296. Section 8(1) authorises the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations limiting payments to any person not otherwise covered by the Act. The power vested to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by way of this provision is extremely broad (section 9) and any regulation can be made retroactive to 1 September 1990. Section 8(4) states that these regulations prevail over every other regulation, every arbitral or other award or decision and every obligation, right, claim, agreement or arrangement of any kind.
9. 297. The complainant alleges that the Act violates Convention No. 87, since it freezes collective agreements including their non-monetary aspects, and prevents the bargaining agent from carrying out its activity. Collective bargaining, mediation, arbitration and, where necessary, the right to strike have all been restricted. The Act also violates Convention No. 98 in that it interferes in the functioning and administration of trade unions, as well as Convention No. 151 since it totally disregards collective bargaining.
10. 298. The Committee has stressed the importance it attaches to the need for efforts being made to bring all parties together to attempt to reach an acceptable compromise when laws are being contemplated which will affect workers (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, para. 651). The unilateral process which the Government followed in introducing the legislation was directly contrary to these principles. No efforts were made by the Government to include public sector workers or their bargaining agent in a process whereby some understanding could be reached. A legislative committee examining Bill 70 gave the pretence that the public would be invited to make submissions to the committee. Approximately 600 presenters turned up to make themselves heard. It was well after midnight when the names of those who wished to be heard were finally called. Naturally most people had become discouraged and had left. Only about 100 people were left to make their presentations and the hearing went on until 5 a.m.
11. 299. There is a particular problem which arises when the law-making body is also the employer, since the balance between the parties is severely distorted when one party holds the power to legislate away previously agreed upon settlements. The Government did not bargain in good faith when it entered into collective agreements prior to the enactment of Bill 70, because the economic position of the province has not changed so drastically over the period between the conclusion of collective agreements and the enactment of Bill 70. The state of the provincial economy ought to have been in the mind of the employer when it was at the bargaining table. As stated by the Committee, the exercise of financial powers by public authorities in a manner that prevents compliance with collective agreements already entered into by public bodies is not consistent with the principles of free collective bargaining (Digest, para. 117).
12. 300. The Committee has also examined situations whereby wage freeze legislation is introduced as a method of dealing with inflation (Case No. 1172 (Ontario), para. 115). It concluded that stabilisation measures restricting the right to collective bargaining are acceptable on condition that they are of an exceptional nature, and only to the extent that they are necessary. The complainant is of the view that the introduction of Bill 70 was not necessary to address an economic emergency, nor was it the most feasible plan.
13. 301. Furthermore, the introduction of a Bill which scapegoats public sector workers and makes them the target of government action is clearly an act of anti-union discrimination as contemplated by Article 4(1) of Convention No. 151. The public sector workers of Manitoba have not been extended adequate protection because the Government/employer has legislated away for the duration of the Act their right to bargain freely and to avail themselves of third-party intervention.
14. 302. The complainant concludes that the Act is not in conformity with the principles of international labour law as defined by the ILO, and stresses that harmful effects have already resulted from the enactment of that legislation which denies the basic rights of Manitoba public sector workers. The Committee should request the Government to repeal the Act so that the workers and trade unions concerned may return to a fair system of free collective bargaining, with access to independent third-party dispute resolution.
15. 303. In its communication of 31 October 1991, the CLC mentioned that similar complaints were presented concerning five different provinces and requested that they be examined separately. It emphasised however that, in the view of the labour movement and most independent labour relations professionals, labour relations in the public sector in Canada are rapidly deteriorating as governments in Canada are quick to enact legislation which denies or severely restricts collective bargaining in the public sector. The CLC believes that, in order for the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association to obtain an accurate account of the extent of the deterioration of the labour relations climate in Canada, it will be necessary to send its own independent mission to Canada sometime during the next several months. It therefore suggests that the Committee strongly consider this as an appropriate option necessary fully to appreciate concerns related to public sector labour relations in Canada. The CLC reiterated its request in its communication of 6 December 1991, mentioning that a further complaint against back-to-work legislation enacted by the federal Government against its public servants would soon be presented to the Committee. According to the CLC, this means that more than one-half million workers in Canada have had their basic rights denied or severely restricted by federal or provincial legislation.

B. The Government's reply

1. 304. The Government submits that its actions in the present case were entirely consistent with ILO principles, since exceptional economic and fiscal circumstances justified the introduction of the Act, as deemed acceptable by the Committee in Case No. 1147, where the Federal Government of Canada had adopted an Act limiting wage increases at 6 and 5 per cent during a period of high inflation. Considering the wages, benefits and working conditions of public sector workers in Manitoba in relation to workers elsewhere in Canada and in other jurisdictions (public sector wages exceeding those of average Manitobans by 40 per cent) it is difficult to see how the substance of the MGEA complaint can be considered significant.
2. 305. In the spring of 1991 the Province of Manitoba faced economic and fiscal constraints resulting from the effects of recession, flat revenues and accumulated debt. In its April 1991 budget the Government took actions to attempt to deal with these difficult circumstances. The budget did not, as is claimed in the MGEA submission, result in 1,000 lay-offs. The budget did eliminate 951 positions of which 430 were occupied. The 430 employees received lay-off notices in accordance with the lay-off procedures in the collective agreement. Any disputes over the correct application of the lay-off provisions are being dealt with through the grievance procedure outlined in the collective agreement. Through measures such as enhancements of the severance provisions beyond that provided for in the collective agreement and a programme providing incentives for voluntary separation (measures recommended by the MGEA) fewer than 100 laid-off employees remain to be re-employed in permanent positions. Many of them are currently employed in temporary positions within the public service. Rather than reduce health care and education spending as alleged by the MGEA, the budget increased spending in the critical priority areas of health care, education and social services.
3. 306. By June of 1991 it was the opinion of the province that the various bargaining agents involved in negotiations in the public sector were not recognising the serious nature of the financial problems facing the province. They were prepared to sacrifice jobs and priority services rather than agree to settlements consistent with current circumstances. As labour costs represent on average 80 per cent of all programme costs funded by the Provincial Government, it was unavoidable that wage restraint be a central component of addressing the economic and fiscal difficulties of the province.
4. 307. The Public Sector Compensation Management Act did not as the MGEA contends "end collective bargaining in the public sector". It extended collective agreements and all the rights and privileges contained therein for a period of 12 months from the date of expiry. The Act further states that "no collective agreement shall be extended by or under the authority of this Act for more than one 12-month period" (section 5(2)). The Act also protected additional payments employees may be entitled to receive under the terms of a collective agreement such as promotion, reclassification, progression within an established pay range and payments in respect of pay equity. The Act did not require the reduction or restriction of any negotiated benefit or working condition and all processes under the agreement for resolution of grievances related to rights under the agreement remained in full force and effect.
5. 308. By the spring of 1991 it was clear to the Government that arbitrators were giving no weight to evidence which established the severe restrictions on the province's ability to pay. These arbitrators were relying, for the most part, on decisions made a number of years ago which held that because of its legislative powers, a government as employer could not ask a board of arbitration to consider ability to pay and that the Government could legislate a result if circumstances were deemed to warrant restraint. With lengthy negotiations having produced no acceptable result and arbitrators unwilling or at least believing they were unable to consider the ability of the Government and ultimately taxpayers to pay, it was the opinion of the province that it was necessary to introduce legislation. The province is strongly committed to taking into account the taxpayers' ability to pay.
6. 309. Contrary to the claims made by the MGEA, the legislation is not aimed at the lowest paid workers: 84 per cent of MGEA members earn in excess of the average Manitoba wage of approximately $24,000 per year. Those earning below $24,000 are generally in entry level or seasonal positions. MGEA members can earn up to $68,000. In addition, wages for employees excluded from the collective agreement were frozen for one year, as were payments to members of the Legislative Assembly and Cabinet Ministers. Provincial judges also did not receive a salary increase for one year. Doctors employed by the Government had signed a collective agreement prior to introduction of the Act and were therefore not subject to the one-year contract extension. However, subsequent to the expiry of their one-year agreement a three-year agreement was negotiated which included a wage freeze in the first year. Contrary to MGEA claims, no previously negotiated increases were taken away.
7. 310. Contrary to the complainant's statement that the Act would create a harmful rift between the parties for at least the foreseeable future, the Government and the MGEA in fact concluded a new three-year collective agreement in December 1991 after one of the shortest periods of negotiating in an approximately 30-year history of collective bargaining between the parties.
8. 311. As regards the alleged lack of consultation, the Government points out that throughout negotiations the MGEA was provided with extensive information on the difficulties facing the province. In the Manitoba system of government, introduction of a Bill into the legislature in no way signifies the consultation process is complete. A Committee of the Legislature meets to review each piece of legislation and interested parties are given the opportunity to make representations to the Committee on their concerns, including suggesting amendments to the Bill. The Committee then refers the bill with any amendments it deems necessary to the legislature. The Bill is then given full consideration and debate in the legislature before the final legislation is passed. In this instance, the views of organised labour were expressed through numerous representations prior to the proclamation of Bill 70. Significant efforts were made to consult with affected parties prior to passage of the legislation both through direct negotiation and through the normal legislation consultation process. While the MGEA contends that "no efforts were made by the Government to include public sector workers or their bargaining agent in a process whereby some understanding could be reached", the reality is that over one year's worth of effort was made by the Government, including more than 30 bargaining meetings during which the MGEA refused to address the significant difficulties facing the province.
9. 312. As regards more specifically the alleged violations of Convention No. 87, the Act only limited trade union activity to the extent explicitly provided for in the legislation. All of the provisions of the collective agreements in force at the time of the extension continued in full force and effect. No rates of pay were reduced, all benefits were continued, working conditions were not altered and grievance resolution procedures remained in place. No restrictions were placed on employees in terms of their right of association and right to organise new groups of workers. Restriction was placed on the negotiation of non-monetary matters in the collective agreement in order to ensure that the collective bargaining process was protected since, in normal negotiations, trade-offs are often made between monetary and non-monetary items. Discussions could continue on matters outside of the agreement or on items to be implemented once the extension was over.
10. 313. Concerning the alleged violation of Convention No. 98, the Government refers to the Committee's view that restrictions on the right to collectively bargain in response to economic difficulties are acceptable "on the condition that they are of an exceptional nature, and only to the extent that they are necessary" (241st Report, Case No. 1172 (Ontario)). The Government of Manitoba determined that exceptional measures were required in light of severe economic and fiscal constraints being experienced by the province. The Government is democratically elected by the people of Manitoba and is charged by those electing it with the responsibility to ensure that the province's finances are managed in a way that ensures the ongoing fiscal and economic stability and strength of the province so that priority services in areas such as health, education and social services can be provided. The parties have a 30-year history of collective bargaining with only one occasion where issues were referred to third-party arbitration. The introduction of Bill 70 was not an action taken lightly by the Government and was only taken after all other efforts proved unsuccessful. Its introduction was clearly in response to exceptional circumstances.
11. 314. The legislation did not roll back wages or benefits in any agreement in force, nor did the Government enter into any agreements prior to the enactment of Bill 70 that were then "legislated away". The extension of the collective agreements applied for 12 months and was specifically restricted to one 12-month period under the Act for any agreement. Section 9(1) of the legislation allows for "terminating or suspending in whole or in part the application of this Act in respect of any employee or group of employees". Therefore the ability to make exceptions does exist under the Act.
12. 315. As regards the alleged violation of Convention No. 151, the Government states that the Act did not erode the "adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment" afforded to public employees in Manitoba. Employees excluded from the bargaining units, including senior executives, members of the legislature, cabinet ministers and judges all had their wages frozen for a year. The measures contained in the Act were applied broadly and the actions of the Government were not limited to union members. The Act only applies to certain public sector workers because they are paid out of the public purse and it is their wages which constitute the majority of provincial expenditure and which are affected by the province's ability to pay.
13. 316. With respect to the alleged violation of Convention No. 154 (Promotion of collective bargaining), the Government submits that the Act in no way disregards the importance of collective bargaining. The over 30-year history of bargaining, the protection of wages, benefits, and working conditions provided by Bill 70 and the successfully concluded three-year collective agreement following the one-year extension, all indicate the Government's commitment to collective bargaining. All of the items in article 5 of the Act referenced by the MGEA in their submissions have been achieved in Manitoba. Free collective bargaining exists when an agreement can be reached through negotiations or through a third party if the result is one the parties would have agreed to after considering all relevant factors, including ability to pay. Final offer selection does not achieve such a result.
14. 317. The decision of the Government to repeal the final offer selection process is an example of efforts taken to promote the free collective bargaining process. The repealed legislation was a one-sided process which favoured unions in that a decision to proceed to final offer selection required a vote of the union membership. Similar rights were not provided to the other party in the bargaining process. The actual final offer selection process, in which the selector could only choose one position or the other, had the effect of creating winners and losers in the process. In many instances the parties moved further apart in their positions and, much as in a lottery, took the chance that their position would be selected: an all or nothing approach. It is this Government's belief that responsible negotiations in which proper weight is given to all relevant factors, including ability to pay, is the best approach for addressing issues in both the public and private sectors.
15. 318. The Government concludes that the Act was a necessary and reasonable response to exceptional circumstances and that as such it was entirely consistent with the Conventions and principles of the ILO. Every effort was made to protect the rights of public employees in Manitoba and to limit any restrictions in those rights to the minimum period of time possible. The fact that a three-year collective agreement was freely negotiated between the parties soon after the expiration of the 12-month extension proves that the collective bargaining environment in Manitoba has not been impaired by the introduction of the Act.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 319. The Committee notes that this case involves certain restrictions on collective bargaining for public sector workers in the Province of Manitoba (Canada). The Government submits that exceptional economic and fiscal circumstances justified the introduction of the Act, and that the measures taken are in conformity with ILO principles.
2. 320. Before turning to the merits of the complaint, the Committee refers to the comments it made in this report in relation to Case No. 1616 (Canada) as regards the general context in which this complaint was presented, and its views on economic arguments as a justification for restricting collective bargaining, which apply equally here with appropriate modifications.
3. 321. The Committee has acknowledged that where, for compelling reasons of national economic interest and as part of its stabilisation policy, a government considers that it is not possible for wage rates to be fixed freely through collective bargaining, any restrictions should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary without exceeding a reasonable period, and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards. (Digest, para. 641.) The Committee of Experts has adopted a similar approach on this issue (General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, 1983, para. 315).
4. 322. As regards the particulars of this case, the Committee notes that, as far as it knows, the Government of Manitoba has never before intervened in this way in the collective bargaining process. Secondly, the Act in fact freezes public sector wage rates for one year, and section 5(2) makes it clear that no collective agreement will be extended for more than one 12-month period; the Act is therefore undoubtedly temporary in nature. Thirdly, section 7(b) of the Act provides exceptions as regards the operation of the Pay Equity Act; measures adopted to remedy pay differentials between men and women for work of equal value would therefore not be affected by the Act. Fourthly, all working conditions and benefits other than salary were maintained. Fifthly, the Act does not embody provisions prohibiting "catch-up" agreements at the end of the restraint period. Finally, the Committee notes that the Government and the MGEA have concluded a new three-year collective agreement in December 1991, which seems to indicate that regular collective bargaining did resume in the Manitoba public sector.
5. 323. The Committee regrets that the Government has not given priority to collective bargaining as a means of determining employment conditions of its public servants, but rather that it felt compelled to adopt the Public Sector Compensation Management Act. The Committee notes, however, that the restrictions were limited to a 12-month period, and that free collective bargaining resumed thereafter. The Committee trusts that the Government will refrain from taking such measures in the future.
6. 324. The complainant also states that the wage restraint legislation was introduced without real consultation with the public sector employees or their bargaining agents, whereas the Government asserts that extensive information on the economic difficulties of the province were given to the MGEA and organised labour, which were able to express their views through numerous representations before the proclamation of the Act. In view of this contradiction, the Committee will only recall the final remarks made on this subject in the 1985 Report of the Study and Information Mission to Canada: "... such consultation is doubly important where the Government seeks to alter bargaining structures in which it acts actually or indirectly as employer. Time available for consultation must be adequate. Obviously it may be limited by the urgency of action in face of economic problems. Its effectiveness can be reduced by the attitude taken by the trade unions concerned. But it is a truism that proposals should be openly discussed, clarified and doubts, fears and misunderstandings resolved before legislation takes its final form" (241st Report, para. 224).

The Committee's recommendations

1. 325. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee regrets that the Government has not given priority to collective bargaining as a means of determining employment conditions of its public servants, but rather that it felt compelled to adopt the Public Sector Compensation Management Act, 1991.
   • (b) The Committee stresses the importance of adequate consultation prior to the introduction of legislation through which the Government seeks to alter bargaining structures in which it acts actually or indirectly as employer.
   • (c) The Committee trusts that the Government will refrain from taking such measures in the future.

ANNEX

1. Extracts of the Public Sector Compensation Management Act
2. 1. In this Act,
3. "collective agreement" means a collective agreement, as defined in the Labour
4. Relations Act, covering employees of an employer and includes a collective
5. agreement authorised under section 47 of the Civil Service Act covering
6. employees of an employer; ("convention collective")
7. "compensation rates" means the rate of pay to which an employee is entitled
8. under a collective agreement and premiums, allowances and benefits of any
9. kind; ("taux de rémunération")
10. ...
11. "employer" means:
12. (a) Her Majesty in right of Manitoba;
13. (b) a Crown Corporation or other body that is subject to all or part of the
14. Crown Corporations Public Review and Accountability Act;
15. (c) a person or entity owning or operating a hospital as defined in the
16. Hospitals Act;
17. ...
18. (g) any public sector employer designated by the Lieutenant Governor in
19. Council in a regulation made under clause 9(1)(b); ("employeur")
20. ...
21. 2(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies to every collective agreement
22. with a date of expiry that is on or after 1 September 1990 and before 1
23. September 1991, or any later date that may be prescribed by the Lieutenant
24. Governor in Council.
25. 2(2) Where both an employer and a union who are parties to a collective
26. agreement covered by subsection (1) have signed after 1 September 1990 and
27. before 3 June 1991 a renewed, revised or new collective agreement covering
28. employees of the employer, this Act does not affect the operation of that
29. signed collective agreement.
30. 2(3) For greater certainty, where an employer and a union who are parties to a
31. collective agreement with an expiry date in the period set out in subsection
32. (1) have not signed a renewed, revised or new collective agreement before 3
33. June 1991, this Act applies to the collective agreement whether or not a final
34. offer selection process or an arbitration process has been commenced or
35. concluded and whether or not a decision of a selector, arbitrator or
36. arbitration board has been rendered.
37. ...
38. 4. This Act prevails over every other Act, every regulation, every arbitral or
39. other award or decision and every obligation, right, claim, agreement or
40. arrangement of any kind.
41. 5(1) Notwithstanding any provision of any Act, regulation, collective
42. agreement, contract, arbitral or other award or decision or other arrangement
43. by which compensation rates are to be or are authorised to be adjusted, every
44. collective agreement is hereby extended for a period of 12 months from its
45. date of expiry, and no requirement, agreement or arrangement of any kind or
46. decision or award to adjust any provision of such a collective agreement for
47. the period of extension is valid.
48. 5(2) For greater certainty, no collective agreement shall be extended by or
49. under the authority of this Act for more than one 12-month period.
50. 6(1) Subject to subsection (2), every collective agreement, other than its
51. provisions or memoranda of agreement which are stated to expire on a specific
52. date, continues in force without change for the period for which the
53. collective agreement is extended under this Act.
54. 6(2) No provision in a collective agreement to adjust compensation rates is of
55. any force or effect during the period that the collective agreement is
56. extended under this Act.
57. 6(3) Subject to subsection 2(2), all negotiations, understandings, agreements
58. and arbitral or final offer selection processes initiated before 3 June 1991,
59. related to the renewal, revision or replacement of a collective agreement with
60. an expiry date in the period set out in subsection 2(1), are void and of no
61. effect.
62. 7. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, an employee may receive additional
63. payments as a result of:
64. ...
65. (b) the operation of the Pay Equity Act; or
66. (c) the operation of a regulation under clause 9(1)(a).
67. ...
68. 8(4) A regulation made under this section prevails over every other
69. regulation, every arbitral or other award or decision and every obligation,
70. right, claim, agreement or arrangement of any kind.
71. ...
72. 9(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
73. (a) terminating or suspending in whole or in part the application of this Act
74. in respect of any employee or group of employees on any terms and conditions
75. that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate;
76. (b) extending the application of all or any part of this Act to any collective
77. agreement on any terms and conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council
78. considers appropriate;
79. ...
80. (f) respecting any other matter considered necessary to carry out the purpose
81. and intent of this Act.
82. ...
83. 11. This Act is repealed on a day fixed by proclamation.
84. 12. This Act is retroactive and is deemed to have come into force on 1
85. September 1990.