On October 28, 2025, Bill 101, An Act to improve certain labour laws,[1] received royal assent. Through this omnibus bill, Québec’s Labour Minister proposed significant reforms to grievance arbitration practices, along with numerous amendments to various workplace laws.
The most significant changes are undoubtedly those affecting the rules set out in the Labour Code (the “Code”) governing grievance arbitration, a dispute resolution process that has long been characterized by minimal formality.
A substantial portion of the amendments came into force on October 28, 2025. The other changes to the Code will take effect on October 28, 2026.
With these remaining provisions set to take effect soon and given the impact of Bill 101 on unionized employers, this bulletin provides an overview of the key changes and their practical implications. This bulletin will help employers better understand their new obligations under the Code and adjust to the legislative framework now in force.
Amendments to the Labour Code Concerning Grievance Arbitration
The grievance arbitration process has been known for its considerable procedural flexibility. Historically, and subject to the rules set out in a collective agreement, parties were only required in exceptional circumstances to disclose their evidence in advance. Since October 28, 2025, however, several new rules govern the grievance arbitration process, namely:
- Obligation to Consider Mediation:
The Code now requires parties to consider settling their grievance through mediation before resorting to arbitration.[2] This obligation aligns grievance arbitration with the well-established principle in civil procedure that requires parties to consider private dispute prevention and resolution processes before referring their dispute to the courts.[3]
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, all information disclosed in the course of mediation is confidential and cannot be admitted as evidence before the courts.[4] Likewise, mediators may not be compelled to disclose information obtained in the course of their duties.[5]
Furthermore, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a mediator may not also act as an arbitrator in the same grievance.
Although mediation was already part of grievance arbitration practice, the Code now formally recognizes and codifies its use.
- Pre-hearing Conference
The Code already provided that an arbitrator could hold a pre-hearing conference before the grievance hearing. Under the amendments, if either party requests a pre-hearing conference, the arbitrator must hold one, regardless of whether the other party agrees. This amendment codifies a practice that had become increasingly common among arbitrators.
- Obligation to Disclose Evidence:
Since October 28, 2025, parties are required to disclose evidence they intend to rely on during the hearing, and they must do so within the time agreed upon at the pre-hearing conference or at least 30 days before the hearing, except in urgent circumstances or unless otherwise decided by the tribunal to ensure the proper administration of justice.
Similarly, each party must provide a list of the witnesses it intends to call or whose testimony it intends to submit in the form of affidavits, unless there is valid reason not to disclose their identities.
Furthermore, parties must provide the arbitrator with proof that this information has also been disclosed to the opposing party.
In accordance with the general rule against the retroactive operation of statutes, this obligation applies only to grievances filed on or after October 28, 2025.
As noted above, new rules will come into force on October 28, 2026, including the following:
- Maximum Time for Appointing Arbitrator:
The Code will now require the parties to appoint an arbitrator within six months of the grievance being filed, failing which the party that filed the grievance must ask the Minister to appoint an arbitrator. If the party fails to do so, it will be deemed to have withdrawn the grievance. However, the tribunal may extend that time limit or relieve a party from the consequences of failing to act within the prescribed time if it is shown that the party could not reasonably have acted within that time limit.[6] These amendments will come into force on October 28, 2026.
It is important to note that these amendments expand the role of arbitrators in determining whether there was reasonable cause for a delay. Some amendments added during the committee stage also tempered the rigidity initially contemplated, including allowing a party to be relieved from the consequences of failing to comply with the prescribed time limit and by replacing the “impossibility to act” criterion with a “reasonable cause” standard.
- Maximum Time for Holding a Grievance Hearing:
The hearing must begin no later than one year after the grievance is filed. However, that time limit may be extended, ex officio or upon the application of one of the parties, if the arbitrator considers that the circumstances and the parties’ interests warrant it.[7] This amendment will come into force on October 28, 2026.
Some amendments made during the committee stage removed the limitation that the time limit could be extended only once for a specified number of days and made it possible for either party to apply for an extension without the other party’s involvement.
This new obligation departs from prior practice, where the start of a hearing depended largely on the availability of the parties and the arbitrator, without a binding timeline. It may, however, give rise to significant practical challenges, particularly in complex or multiparty disputes and in a context where arbitrators continue to be in high demand.
Taken as a whole, these amendments reflect a clear intention to more closely regulate the grievance arbitration process, while still leaving arbitrators with considerable discretion. The success of this reform will depend in large part on how these new obligations are interpreted and applied in future arbitral decisions.
Practical Tips
From a practical standpoint, these new provisions will require closer management of grievances from the moment they are filed. To ensure that grievances proceed smoothly and to minimize procedural risks, the authors recommend paying particular attention to the following points:
Maximum Time for Appointing Arbitrator: Begin the arbitrator appointment process as soon as the grievance is filed and implement close monitoring of deadlines, particularly in the case of employer grievances, to avoid any risk of a deemed withdrawal of the grievance.
Obligation to Consider Mediation: Consider using mediation early in the grievance process, taking into account its confidential nature and the fact that information disclosed in the course of mediation cannot be admitted as evidence without the parties’ consent.
Pre-hearing Conference: Request a pre-hearing conference where the circumstances warrant it, particularly to structure the proceedings, clarify evidentiary issues and establish applicable timelines.
Obligation to Disclose Evidence: Identify, organize and disclose evidence and witness lists in a timely manner, within the applicable time limits, and document that disclosure so that proof of it can be provided to the arbitrator.
Meet with Witnesses Before Hearing: Meet with witnesses as soon as a hearing date is confirmed in order to identify relevant documentary evidence early, avoid late disclosures and strategically position the case.
Thorough Disciplinary Investigations: Conduct thorough disciplinary investigations by clearly defining the alleged facts, documenting the explanations obtained, providing the individual concerned with all relevant documents, and following up on any contradictions or inconsistencies at an early stage.
Maximum Time for Holding a Grievance Hearing: Schedule the hearing as soon as the grievance is filed and actively monitor the progress of the case to ensure the applicable maximum time limit isn’t missed or, where circumstances warrant, prepare an application for an extension.
Collective Bargaining: Pay close attention to union proposals that may be influenced by these new provisions in order to anticipate their potential implications.
Conclusion
The amendments introduced by this omnibus bill reform the grievance arbitration process, and it will be interesting to see how future arbitral decisions define the parameters of these new rules.
