CUPE NB Home

Calendar of Events

List of Executive

CUPE National

 

This document is available in English only at this time.

2. CUPE NB hereby lodges the complaint set out below with the International Labour Organization (“ILO”) against legislation put in effect by the Government of New Brunswick which contravenes ILO standards and principles of association and collective bargaining.  The governmental measure which forms the subject of the complaint is contained in the PSLRA. 

3. Part I of the complaint sets out the facts on which the complainant relies.  Part II reviews the relevant parts of the ILO conventions which the complainant submits have been infringed by the measures taken by the New Brunswick Government.  Part III contains the complainant’s submission regarding the infringements. 

PART I : FACTS UPON WHICH THE COMPLAINT IS BASED 

4. The rights of public sector workers to bargain collectively with the Government of New Brunswick, and a number of separate employers in the public sector, derive from the PSLRA . 

5. A number of CUPE Locals are bargaining agents for units of employees in the provincial public sector, certified under the PSLRA.  These included CUPE Locals: 

  946 - Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation Centre 
 963 - NB Liquor Store Workers 
1190 - General Labour and Trades Group 
1251 - NB Council of Provincial Institutional Unions 
1252 - NB Council of Hospital Unions 
1253 - NB Council of School Board Unions 
1418 - Rehabilitation and Therapy Group, and Recreation and Culture Program Officers 
1866 -  Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of NB 
2745 -  School Board Clerical Group 

6. Other unions (or “employee organizations” under the PSLRA) are also bargaining agents for other units of employees under the PSLRA.  These include: 

New Brunswick Nurses Union (NBNU) 
New Brunswick Public Employees Association (NBPEA) 
New Brunswick Government Employees Union (NBGEU) 
New Brunswick Teachers’ Federation (NBTF) 
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPS) 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) 

 
7.  The Employer which is party to collective agreements with the CUPE Locals 1190, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1418 and 2745 is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Board of Management.  The Employer which is party to collective agreements with CUPE Locals 946 and 1866, is the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick, a separate Employer under the PSLRA.  The Employer which is party to a collective agreement with CUPE Local 963 is the New Brunswick Liquor Commission, a separate Employer under the PSLRA. 

8. The  PSLRA section 1 contains the following definition of “employee”: 

Section 1 . . . . 

“employee” means a person employed in the Public Service, other than 

• a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under an Act of the Legislature to a statutory position described in that Act and to whom the Civil Service Act does not apply,
•  a person locally engaged outside the Province,
•  a person whose compensation for the performance of the regular duties of his position or office consists of fees of office, or is related to the revenue of the office in which he is employed,
• (c.1) a person not ordinarily required to work more than one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work,
•  Repealed: 1990, c.30, s.1.
•  a person employed on a casual or temporary basis unless the person so employed for a continuous period of six months or more,
• a person employed by or under the Board, or
• a person employed in a managerial or confidential capacity,
• and for the purposes of this definition a person does not cease to be employed in the Public Service by reason only of his ceasing to work as a result of a lawful strike or by reason only of his discharge contrary to this or any other Act of the Legislature;

9. A copy of the entire PSLRA is enclosed. 

10. The complainant  submits that the limited definition of employee under the PSLRA contravenes: 

-   the express terms of Convention No. 98 concerning the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (1949); 

-  Convention No. 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (1948); 

-  Convention No. 154 concerning the Promotion of Collective Bargaining (1981); and 

- Convention No. 151 concerning Labour Relations (Public Service) (1978), and Recommendation 159 concerning Labour Relations (Public Service) (1978). 

11. The within complaint concerns this restrictive definition of “employee” in s.1, particularly in paragraphs (c.1)   and (e) above, and its effect on the unionization of casual workers in the public sector. 

12. This exception to the s.1 definition of “employee” in paragraph (e) refers to persons employed on a casual or      temporary basis.  The exception to the s.1 definition of employee in paragraph (c.1) also often relates to the situation of casual workers.  Because persons employed on both of these bases are commonly referred to as “casuals” or   “casual workers”, they will be so referred to herein. 
 

(A) Public Service Labour Relations Act – Legislative history regarding “casuals” 

     13. The exclusion of persons “employed on a casual or temporary basis unless the person has been so employed for      a continuous period of six months or more” is not new.  There have been a number of legislative changes to this part  of the definition of employee over the years.  Those in the past decade are summarized here. 

14. In 1990, “employee” in s.1 of the PSLRA meant a person employed in the Public Service other than: 

. . . 

-  a person not ordinarily required to work more than one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work; 

or 

- a person employed on a casual or temporary basis, unless he has been so employed for a continuous period of six months or more, 

. . . 

Bill 44 

15. On June 4, 1990, Bill 44 was introduced.  It repealed paragraph (d), above, and replaced paragraph (e) with the      following: 

-  a person employed on a casual or temporary basis, unless the person has been so employed and has worked for more than one thousand one hundred and thirty-four hours within any two consecutive calendar year period in any one portion of the Public Service specified in Part I, Part II, Part III or Part IV of the First Schedule, 
[Emphasis added.] 

Bill 44 became effective on January 1, 1991.  However, it provided (in s. 49) that if a collective agreement was in force on January 1, 1991, then the new definition would not apply until the next collective agreement was executed. 

Bill 61 

16. Effective May 16, 1991, Bill 61 again changed the definition of employee.  The word “calendar” was deleted, in order to allow hours to accumulate within any two consecutive year period, starting at any time during the year.  Bill 61 set the date of commencement for the accumulation of 1134 hours at April 1, 1991.  Only hours worked since April 1, 1991 could be taken into consideration for the purpose of the 1134 hours.  This April 1, 1991 date was considered in effect on January 1, 1991 which was the effective date for the new definition from Bill 44.  In other words, Bill 61 took away the argument that the hours accumulated prior to the execution of a new collective agreement could “count” toward the 1134; only those worked on or after April 1, 1991 could count. 

Bill 73 

17. Effective June 6, 1991, the Expenditure Management Act 1991 (Bill 73) extended collective agreements by one year. Thus, in order for the Bill 44/61 definition to apply, a collective agreement would have to have been entered into after January 1, 1991 and before the Expenditure Management Act 1991. 

Bills 42 and 74 

18. On May 20, 1992, Royal assent was given to two more pieces of legislation:  the Expenditure Management Act 1992 (Bill 42) and an Act to Amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act (Bill 74). 

19. The Expenditure Management Act 1992 came into effect on May 28, 1992.  It applied to collective agreements (or arbitral awards) under the PSLRA or relating to employees of nursing homes under the Industrial Relations Act. 

20. Bill 74 (Royal Assent 20 May 92) revised the definition of “employee” in s.1 of the PSLRA as follows: 

by adding after paragraph (c) the following: 

(c.1) a person not ordinarily required to work more than one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work, 

in paragraph (e) by striking out “and has worked for more than one thousand one hundred and thirty-four hours within any two consecutive year period” and substituting “and has worked for more than nine hundred and sixty hours during the immediate past twelve consecutive months”. 

[Emphasis added.] 

21. Note that, in addition to changing the “casual” provision, Bill 74 also re-added the “one-third normal period” requirement that Bill 44 had removed from the PSLRA. 

22. This new casual employee provision applied to bargaining units regarding which collective agreements had been entered into after January 1, 1991.  In other words, the Bill 44/61 definition, which only applied to collective agreements entered into after January 1, 1991, was replaced by this new definition.  So one was left with either the original “6-month” definition or “964 hours in immediate past twelve consecutive months”. 

23. On May 7, 1993, Bill 54 was enacted.  It repealed paragraph (e) of the definition of “employee” and substituted: 

a person employed on a casual or temporary basis unless the person so employed for a continuous period of six months or more, 
 

24. So the legislation has essentially gone full-circle. 

25. One can see that casual workers fall within the statutory exception because of the nature of their employment, which though beyond six months is not considered continuous, or because their employment is continuous but for less than one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work, or because their continuous employment is cut off before six months (e.g. seasonals). 

26. The complainant does not know the exact number of casual workers who are excluded from the definition of employee.  The current estimate is that there  are over 6,000 casuals, without employee status, doing CUPE bargaining unit work. 

(B) Jurisprudence – on casual workers attaining employee status 
 

27. It is important to note that casual workers often do not attain employee status after working six months.  In fact many casuals have worked for many years without the right to unionize and be covered by a collective agreement.  They work side-by-side with those who have attained employee status (including casual employees who have employee status), and yet are not protected by collective agreements and have very different terms and conditions of employment. 

28. The jurisprudence pertaining to the definition of employee shows how the legislation has made it extremely difficult for casuals to obtain employee status under the PSLRA.  Several main cases illustrate the situation. 

29. The first case is Re Martin (1981) 35 N.B.R. (2d) 365 (N.B.C.A.).  In particular, see paragraph 12, page 370.  There, the casual person was not obliged to work when requested to do so.  She could work or decline work as she saw fit.  Therefore, the Court found that she had a new and separate contract of employment each time she was requested to work and accepted that invitation.  As a result, she had no continuous period of employment, and no employee status. 

30. The second case is Re Clarke (1983) 47 N.B.R. (2d) 1 (N.B.C.A.).  In particular, see p. 3 and paragraph 17, page 10.  Again the Court found that the casual person there was free to accept or refuse any assignment offered to her.  The employer could not order her to work on a particular day.  Therefore, each positive response on her part to the employer’s request constituted an employment on a casual basis for the period which she worked.  Although Ms. Clarke had worked over 100 hours per month for 12 consecutive months, she was held to not have a continuous period of employment, and was left without employee status. 

31. The third case is Stewart et al. (1985) 70 N.B.R. (2d) 93 (N.B. Ct.Q.B.), appeal dismissed by Court of Appeal October 29, 1986.  There, at paragraphs 14 and 15, pages 98 to 99, Mr. Justice Creaghan concludes that two elements must be present in order for a casual person to achieve employee status: 

At the onset of the period of employment, the employer and the employee must both understand that the term of employment is on a defined and regular basis for a period of six months or more. 

The person must ordinarily be required to work more than one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work. 

Once again, a casual could actually work for many months or even years, and still never attain employee status and the rights and protections attendant thereto. 
 
32. Other cases which illustrate how public sector seasonal employees can be deprived of the right to associate and unionize due to the restrictive definition of employee are Re Furlong  (1973) 8 N.B.R. (2d) 157 (N.B.Ct.Q.B.) and Lee (1983) 49 N.B.R. (2d) 255 (N.B.Ct.Q.B.), appeal dismissed 54 N.B.R. (2d) 326 (N.B.C.A.). 

33. Such seasonal employees can work for up to 6 months per year for many years, every year, but as long as they are cut short of six months continuous employment, never attain employee status. 

34. Cases such as Lee also show how a collective agreement cannot modify the statutory exclusion, in order to cover workers without employee status.  See also New Brunswick v. CUPE, New Brunswick Council of Hospital Unions (1984) 57 N.B.R. 17 (N.B.Ct.Q.B.), and New Brunswick Council of School Board Unions (N.B.C.A., April 12, 1985) and Stewart, supra. 

35. Throughout the jurisprudence, the Courts make it clear that the statutory definition of “employee” would have to be changed if the rights and protections of the PSLRA and collective agreements are to be achieved.  As stated by Mr. Justice Creaghan in Stewart, supra, at p. 99, paragraph 16: 

Herein lies an anomaly which counsel for the respondent readily admits and which is of fundamental concern to the applicants.  Under the terms of the Act the employer can prevent an employee hired as a casual from obtaining “employee” status under the Act by interrupting any regular or defined basis of employment before a six month period has elapsed.  I believe this is the way the employer perceives the law to be and from my reading of the law, I think it is correct.  A response as to whether such a situation is appropriate lies with the legislature not with the courts. 
 
 
 

Lack of Statutory Protections and Rights 

36. The PSLRA establishes the rules and procedures regarding the certification of employee organizations as bargaining agents for workers, the duty of employers to bargain with these bargaining agents regarding terms and conditions of employment, and the various protections which facilitate organizing and collective bargaining, including: the prohibition against interference by employers with employee organizations; the prohibition against intimidation and coercion of workers by employers for union activity, including dismissal for union activities; and other important protections. 

37. Employees not covered by the PSLRA or by another statute regulating collective bargaining are excluded from the protection and coverage of collective bargaining legislation, and instead, are governed by the common law. 

38. Under Canadian law, without statutory protections for organizing, collective bargaining and strike activity provided by the PSLRA, including administrative enforcement machinery, workers are vulnerable to penalties (including dismissal), and to legal action being taken against them for various acts of combination (including the torts of directly or indirectly inducing breach of contract and conspiracy to directly or indirectly induce breach of contract).  Employers are under no legal obligation to bargain with employees over terms and conditions of employment.  Moreover, the common law has not recognized the binding nature of or enforceability of collective agreements. 

39. As a result, to be denied access to the statutory machinery of collective bargaining is to be denied access to collective bargaining in any meaningful sense.  In short, by removing any category of workers from coverage under the statutory machinery, such workers are denied access to the ability to organize and engage in collective bargaining, including protection from employer reprisal for engaging in protected union activity, and the ability to enter into enforceable collective agreements. 

PART II: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CONVENTIONS 
 

40. The restrictive definition of employee in the PSLRA violates: 

The freedom to organize, as set out in: 

- Convention No. 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, Article 2 

Convention No. 151, Labour Relations (Public Service), 1978, Articles 1 and 4 

Convention No. 98, Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining, 1949, Article 1 
 

The right to establish unions, as set out in: 

Convention No. 87, Articles 3 and 5; and 
Convention No. 151 

The right to participate in external union activities, particularly: 

Collective Bargaining 
 Convention No. 98, Article 4 
 Convention No. 151, Article 7 
 Convention No. 154, Articles 1 and 5; and 

Right to Strike 
(a)  Convention No. 87, Article 3. 

41. Of the above, Canada has ratified Convention No. 87.  While Canada has not ratified Convention Nos. 98, 151 or 154, those Conventions, along with Recommendations Nos. 151 and 159, are standards which should be met, and have not been met by the Province of New Brunswick. 
 

Relevant ILO Conventions 

Convention No. 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (1948) 
 

42. Article 2 of Convention No. 87 provides that: 

Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorization. 

43. Article 3 of Convention No. 87 provides that: 

Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. 

The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. 

44. Article 8 of Convention No. 87 provides that 

. . . 

3. The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention.

45. Article 1 of Convention No. 98 provides that: 

Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. 

Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to:

make the employment of workers subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership;

(b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.

Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts or interference by each other or each others’ agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration. 

In particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organisations under the domination of employers or employers’ organisations or to support workers’ organisations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers’ organisations, shall be deemed to constitute acts of interference within the meaning of this Article.

Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulations of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.

48. Article 1 of Convention No. 151 provides that: 

This Convention applies to all persons employed by public authorities, to the extent that more favourable provisions in other international labour Conventions are not applicable to them. 

The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to high-level employees whose functions are normally considered as policy-making or managerial, or to employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature, shall be determined by national laws or regulations.

49. Article 7 of Convention No. 151 states that: 
 

Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between the public authorities concerned and public employees’ organisations, or of such other methods as will allow representatives of public employees to participate in the determination of these matters.

The settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment shall be sought, as may be appropriate to national conditions, through negotiations between the parties or through independent and impartial machinery, such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration, established in such a manner as to ensure the confidence of the parties involved.

51. Article 1 of Convention No. 154 provides that: 

This Convention applies to all branches of economic activity.

Measures adapted to national conditions shall be taken to promote collective bargaining. 

The aims of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be the following:

(a) collective bargaining should be made possible for all employers and all groups of workers in the branches of activity covered by this Convention; 
. . . 

(d) collective bargaining should not be hampered by the absence of rules governing the procedure to be used or by the inadequacy or inappropriateness of such rules; 

(e) bodies and procedures for the settlement of labour disputes should be so conceived as to contribute to the promotion of collective bargaining.

The Exclusions from the PSLRA Constitute Discrimination 
 

53. The Freedom of Association Committee has stated that Article 2 of Convention No. 87, which has been ratified by Canada, is designed to give expression to the principle of non-discrimination in trade union matters, and has determined that the words “without distinction whatsoever” used in this Article mean that freedom of association should be guaranteed without discrimination of any kind.  Casual workers are discriminated against under the PSLRA. 

54. The exclusions from the category of “employee” should be limited to those contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 2 of Convention No. 151 – Labour Relations (Public Service) i.e., to high-level employees whose functions are normally considered as policy-making or managerial or to employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature. 

Committee Comments, Case No. 903 

Here the exclusions are beyond the standard set by the ILO. 

55. The restrictive definition of employee is contrary to the trend in other provinces, and particularly to the definition of employee in other New Brunswick legislation. 

Comparison of PSLRA (Public Sector) to IRA (Private Sector) 

56. There is a marked distinction between the definition of employee in the PSLRA and the IRA.  The former applies to public sector employers; the latter to private sector employers (which for statutory purposes includes municipalities and nursing homes). 

57. The definition of employee in s. 1(1) of the IRA reads: 
 

“employee” means a person employed to do skilled or unskilled manual, clerical, technical or professional work, but does not include 

(a) a manager or superintendent, or any other person who, in the opinion of the Board, is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations or who exercises management functions, or 

(b) a person employed in domestic service in a private home;

The personal nature of the services rendered by domestic staff and the isolation in which they work add to the peculiarity of their situation.  The Convention does not provide for any exception in their case, however, and they should normally be entitled to joining trade unions, in accordance with the criteria set out in the preceding paragraph.

 See also Committee Conclusions in Case No. 1900. 

59. Significantly, casual workers are not excluded from the definition of employee in the IRA.  There is no requirement that workers work a specific number of hours or continuous months in order to have employee status and the rights afforded by the IRA. 

60. To illustrate the discriminatory result: casual hospital workers are in the public sector under the PSLRA, and so those without employee status are without the rights and protections of the PSLRA.  Casual nursing home workers are in the private sector, under the IRA, and so have the rights and protections of the IRA.  The same discriminatory result is pronounced when one compares, for instance, provincial transportation workers, under the PSLRA, to municipal workers under the IRA. 
 
 
 

The Affected Workers are Excluded from Collective Bargaining 

61. Affected workers do not have the protection of the statutory prohibitions against discrimination or reprisal for engaging in activities of employee organizations, or against interference with representation.  Employee organizations cannot be certified as bargaining agents of these workers.  Employers of these workers are not under any legal obligation to engage in any bargaining whatsoever regarding the terms and conditions of employment. 

62. The Committee has determined that freedom of association implies not only the right of workers and employers to form freely organizations of their own choosing but also, under Article 3 of Convention 87, the right of the organizations themselves to pursue lawful activities in the defence of their occupational interests. 

1985 Digest, para. 345. 

63. The Committee has stated that the right to bargain freely with employers with respect to conditions of work constitutes an essential element of freedom of association, and that trade unions should have the right, through collective bargaining or other lawful means, to seek to improve the living and working conditions of those whom the trade union represents.  The Committee has declared that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.  Any such interference infringes the principle that workers’ and employers’ organizations should have the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. 

1985 Digest, para. 782 
1985 Digest, para. 583 

64. The complainant also submits that the restrictive definition of employee fails to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers and workers’ organizations with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements mandated under Article 4 of Convention 98. 

65. In interpreting Article 4 of Convention 98, the Committee of Experts has stated that: 
 

In the Committee’s view, the right to negotiate wages and conditions of employment freely with the employers and their organizations is a fundamental aspect of freedom of association.  Trade unions must have the opportunity to exercise this right without being unduly hampered by legal restrictions.  The adoption of restrictive measures violates the principle whereby organizations of workers and employers have the right to organize their activity and formulate their programme of action; it is also incompatible with principle that collective bargaining should be promoted.

66. The complainant also submits that the restrictive definition also fails to conform to the principles and standards set out in Convention No. 154.  Excluding the affected workers from collective bargaining and the protections of the PSLRA does not promote collective bargaining or ensure that collective bargaining is made possible for all workers as required by Article 5 of Convention 154. 
 

The Affected Workers are Excluded from the Protections of the PSLRA 

67. Exclusion of many casual workers from the ambit of the PSLRA also fails to comply with the second aspect of Convention No. 98: protecting workers against acts or anti-union discrimination and victimization by employers. 

68. Article 1 of Convention 98 requires that States establish general protections against anti-union discrimination, particularly protections against employers making employment conditional upon relinquishing trade union membership, or dismissing or otherwise prejudicing a worker because of union membership or participation in union activity. 

69. Casual workers who are not employees under the PSLRA do not have the same specific protections granted to “employees” against anti-union discrimination or the specific acts of anti-union animus described in Article 1.  In addition, any workers’ organizations that are formed by the excluded workers are not “employee organizations” under the PSLRA, and so are not protected from discrimination by employers as required under Article 2 of Convention 98 and as provided for under the PSLRA. 
 
 

The Affected Workers do not have a Protected Right to Strike 

70. The workers excluded from the PSLRA have no right to strike and are not protected from the imposition of penalties or dismissal should they strike. Workers at common law have no such protection: 

a strike by non-unionized employees will always be illegal and will, presumably, constitute a breach of their work obligations sufficiently serious to entitle the employer to dismiss them summarily, provided the motivation for doing so is their intentional absence from work and not any apprehended union affiliation. 

Innis Christie, Employment Law in Canada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980), at p. 273. 

1985 Digest, para. 363 

72. The Committee has determined that restrictions on the right to strike would be acceptable only with regard to essential services and in the public service and must be accompanied by adequate quarantees as compensation for the limitation placed on their freedom of action with regard to disputes affecting such undertakings and services. 

1995 Digest, para. 526 and 546  
1985 Digest, paras. 386 and 396  
 

73. As regards the nature of the appropriate guarantees in cases where restrictions are placed on the right to strike in essential services and the public service, restrictions on the right to strike should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage and in which awards, once made, are fully and promptly implemented. 

1995 Digest, para. 547  
1985 Digest, para. 397  

74. The complainant submits that the removal of the right of the affected workers by virtue of their exclusion from the PSLRA is not in conformity with the principles governing the right to strike acknowledged by the Committee. 

CONCLUSION 

75. The Government of New Brunswick should amend the PSLRA to bring it in line with ILO standards, by removing the exceptions to the section 1 definition of employee, paragraph (c.1) and (e). 

DATED AT FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 1999. 
 
 
(signed by) 
 
SUSAN BARTON 
President 
CUPE New Brunswick 

Related Links

ILO Ruling (English)

Rapport de l'OIT (français)