Union complaints against Hydro-Quebec dismissed

Hydro-Quebec did not negotiate in bad faith and did not hinder the activities of its workers’ union by establishing three “priority behaviours” expected of employees as part of its strategic plan.

The Administrative Labour Tribunal dismissed two complaints of obstruction of union activities and breach of obligation to negotiate in good faith filed against Hydro-Quebec by the Syndicat des spécialistes et professionnels d’Hydro-Québec.

In 2024, Hydro-Quebec adopted three “priority behaviours” that all employees must develop “in order to contribute to the achievement of the employer’s new strategic plan.”

Prior to the adoption of these “priority behaviours,” there was a “competency repertoire,” defined as a combination of skills, aptitudes and attitudes observed in the best-performing employees.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), affiliated with the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ), said this created confusion.

In 2018, the collective agreement included an appendix that reduced the selection of skills the employer could use in a job posting from 42 to 21.

“The union insists that priority behaviours greatly affect employees’ career development by creating uncertainty as to the criteria that will be evaluated when a position is awarded,” said administrative judge Jessica Laforest.

“In its view, employees in the bargaining unit are always looking for a new position to advance within the company because the seniority criterion does not apply to them. As a result, the directory enables employees to assess their own skills and plan their career paths within the organization. With the adoption of priority behaviours, it wondered whether employees should be oriented towards these behaviours or towards skills,” the judge summarized.

Hydro-Quebec management argued that it had merely exercised its management right.

“According to the employer, the adoption of priority behaviours and their use in the context of human resources activities fall within the exercise of its right to manage, in compliance with the provisions of the collective agreement and without any form of hindrance to the union’s activities,” Laforest noted.

In the end, the court dismissed the union’s two complaints.

It rejected the complaint of breach of obligation to negotiate in good faith since the active negotiation phase of the collective agreement had not begun.

“Section 53 of the code is clear and its interpretation does not demand the obligation to bargain in good faith be extended to the period prior to the bargaining phase provided for therein,” said the judge.

The court also dismissed the complaint of obstruction.

“The tribunal found that the preponderance of evidence did not show that the employer intended to harm the union. Consequently, the tribunal concludes that the circumstances in which the employer adopted the priority behaviours do not demonstrate anti-union conduct,” it said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French April 21, 2025.