Ban Replacement Workers During Strikes

Summary#

Bill 96, the Anti-Scab Labour Act, 2026, would amend Ontario’s Labour Relations Act, 1995. It would restore restrictions on using replacement workers during strikes and lockouts, with exceptions for certain services and serious risks. Its stated goal is to prevent employers from replacing striking or locked-out employees, except in specified emergency situations.

  • Employers generally could not use bargaining-unit employees, newly hired people, or specified workers from other locations or employers to do the work of striking or locked-out employees.
  • Employers could use those workers only for certain listed services or to prevent danger, serious damage to equipment or premises, or serious environmental damage—and only to the extent necessary. Notice to the union and an opportunity for it to offer willing and able bargaining-unit employees would usually be required.
  • The bill would bar employers from requiring employees at the affected worksite to do striking or locked-out employees’ work without their agreement, and from penalizing them for refusing.
  • After a strike or lockout, employers would generally have to reinstate affected employees to their former positions. The bill also sets rules for who returns first if there is not enough work.
  • A union could tender payments to continue employment benefits during a lawful strike or lockout. The employer or other recipient would have to accept sufficient payments and take steps to keep the benefits in force.

What it means for you#

  • Employees in a bargaining unit: During a lockout or a lawful strike, the bill would restrict who can do your work. For a strike, the required vote must be held after notice to bargain or the start of bargaining, whichever comes first, and at least 60 per cent of those voting must authorize it.
  • Employees asked to do replacement work: You could not be required to do that work without your agreement. Your employer could not threaten, dismiss, discriminate against, intimidate, or penalize you because you refuse.
  • Employees returning after a strike or lockout: You would generally return to your former position. If there is not enough work, seniority or length of service would determine the order, subject to exceptions in the bill.
  • Unions and employers: Employers would have to notify the union before using replacement workers under an exception and give details about the work, service level, and number of workers. The union could consent to bargaining-unit employees doing some or all of that work, if they are willing and able. Either side could ask the Ontario Labour Relations Board to decide whether an exception applies and set directions.
  • People relying on listed services: The bill would allow limited replacement work for services such as emergency shelters, ambulance services, secure custody, and certain residential care. It would also allow it to prevent danger to life, health, or safety, serious damage to machinery, equipment, or premises, or serious environmental damage.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated public cost.

  • The bill would require employers and unions to give notices and follow the new rules. It gives the Labour Relations Board a role in deciding disputes and issuing directions, but provides no cost estimate or staffing figure.
  • A union could pay to continue employment benefits during a strike or lockout. The bill does not state the amount of those payments.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied material does not include the current Labour Relations Act, 1995, so I could not verify which related rules or Board processes already exist, or how the proposed text would interact with them.
  • The bill does not define terms such as “serious environmental damage” or explain how disputed claims about danger or service needs would be assessed, apart from allowing Board applications.
  • It does not set out a general complaint process, timelines for Board decisions, or penalties for breaking these new rules.
  • The bill says it starts on Royal Assent, but the supplied material does not state its current status or whether it has received Royal Assent.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to stop employers from using replacement workers to reduce the effect of a strike or lockout. Restricting replacement work could help preserve the bargaining impact of those actions.
  • The exceptions allow replacement work for specified services and serious risks, while limiting it to what is necessary. This could be seen as a way to protect people and property without creating a general permission to replace striking workers.
  • Reinstatement rules could give employees more certainty about returning to work after a strike or lockout.

Case against#

  • The restrictions would limit employers’ ability to use people from other worksites or outside suppliers to keep operations going during a strike or lockout. The exceptions may not cover every situation an employer considers important.
  • Terms such as “serious environmental damage” are not defined in the bill. This could leave important disputes about when replacement work is allowed to the parties and the Board.
  • The bill sets reinstatement and seniority rules that could limit an employer’s flexibility when restarting operations or when there is not enough work for everyone.