Quick Hits

• Québec employers may communicate with employees during collective bargaining but must respect the union’s exclusive role and avoid threats, coercion, or direct negotiation.
• Employer communications must be factual and neutral, intended to inform rather than influence or undermine the union.
• During collective bargaining, employers can correct misleading union statements if their response is truthful and respectful, with each situation judged on its specific context and impact.

In Québec’s labour relations landscape, the concept of employer freedom of expression refers to an employer’s right to communicate with employees, even during collective bargaining. While this right remains intact in unionized settings, it must be exercised with care to avoid infringing on union rights.

Article 12 of the Québec Labour Code plays a central role in this balance. It protects employees’ freedom of association and prohibits employers from dominating, hindering, or financing union activities. This legal safeguard means that employers must tread carefully when discussing union-related matters, especially during negotiations. Over the years, this provision has been tested in numerous cases, shaping the boundaries of acceptable employer communication.

Defining the Boundaries: Employer Communications

Employers are not stripped of their right to communicate during collective bargaining. However, they are required to respect the union’s exclusive role as the employees’ representative. Courts have consistently emphasized that the context, content, and consequences of employer communications are key to determining whether they cross the line into interference.

To stay within legal bounds, employer communications must be:

• Objective and factual
• Free of threats or coercion
• Respectful of the union’s legitimacy
• Truthful and nondeceptive

The goal is to inform not to influence or intimidate. Communications should encourage thoughtful reflection, not emotional reactions, and must not undermine the union’s credibility and legitimacy or suggest that the union’s demands are unreasonable and responsible for any failures of the collective bargaining process.

Recent Superior Court Decision

The Superior Court of Québec’s ruling in the case of Syndicat des travailleurs des pâtes et papiers de Windsor inc. (CSN) v. Domtar inc., usine de Windsor, 2025 QCCS 690 offers additional insight into the limits of employer communication during collective bargaining, especially in situations where the union has disseminated information that the employer considers to be misleading or incomplete.

In this case, during the course of negotiations, the employer issued a final offer. The union responded by informing its members that no agreement had been reached and attributed the lack of progress to the employer. Believing this portrayal to be misleading, the employer sent a memo directly to employees, outlining the key elements of its offer and disputing the union’s claims. The union filed a complaint under Article 12, alleging that the employer’s direct communication bypassed the union and undermined its role.

Key Findings From the Superior Court

The Superior Court affirmed the employer’s right to directly communicate with employees in this context, provided certain conditions are met:

• Context is critical: The court reaffirmed that not all employer communications to employees constitute interference. The legality of such communications depends on their context, content, and consequences. In this case, the court found that the employer’s memo was a justified response to incomplete information previously shared by the union.
• Right to correct the record: The court accepted that an employer may communicate directly with employees to clarify or correct misleading or incomplete information disseminated by the union, provided the communication is factual, respectful, and does not attempt to negotiate directly with employees.
• No presumption of interference: While the union holds the exclusive right to communicate offers to members, the court clarified that there is no automatic presumption that an employer’s disclosure of offer details constitutes interference. Each situation must be assessed on its own merits.
• No evidence of harm: The court noted that the union was not in a vulnerable position, and there was no evidence that the employer’s communication disrupted union cohesion or undermined its authority. The employer’s message was found to be consistent with the facts and respectful of the union’s role.
• Intent matters: For a violation of Article 12 to occur, there must be a culpable intent either deliberate or through willful blindness. In this case, the court found no such intent on the employer’s part.

Ultimately, the Superior Court concluded that the employer’s communication was a legitimate exercise of its freedom of expression and did not amount to interference under the Québec Labour Code.

Employer Dos and Don’ts: Insights From Recent Case Law

In light of the case law discussed above, here are key guidelines for employers when communicating with employees in a unionized environment:

Permitted Actions:

1. Sharing Factual Information
   Employers may share accurate and objective information about the status of negotiations, as long as the content is truthful and not misleading.
2. Correcting Misleading Claims

If the union has shared incomplete or inaccurate information, employers are entitled to issue clarifications, provided these are fact-based, neutral in tone, and not intended to undermine the union’s credibility.

3. Respecting the Union’s Role

Employers may express their views on negotiations or workplace matters but must always respect the union’s exclusive role as the bargaining agent and avoid any attempt to bypass or discredit the union.

Prohibited Actions:

1. Using Threats or Coercion
   Any form of intimidation, pressure, or implied consequences related to union activity is strictly prohibited.
2. Negotiating Directly With Employees
   Employers must not attempt to negotiate directly with employees or solicit feedback on offers outside the formal bargaining process.
3. Disseminating Misleading Information
   Communications that distort facts or mislead employees about the union or negotiations can be deemed interference.

Next Steps

Understanding employer freedom of expression in a unionized context is essential to avoid union interference complaints. While employers have the right to communicate with employees during collective bargaining, they must respect the union’s role and comply with the boundaries set by Article 12 of the Québec Labour Code. Given that complaints under Article 12 are highly fact-specific, employers may want to meticulously consider the context, tone, and potential consequences of their messaging before communicating with employees.