B.C.’s natural resources industries have always been sensitive to the shifting of global trade winds. Global forces, mercurial tariffs, and talk of transpacific trade wars have made it difficult for employers in this sector to navigate with confidence.
A common practice to maintain productivity in the resource sector is the periodic use of temporary curtailments until the winds of trade shift favourably. These measures can result in temporary lay-offs for a significant number of employees for the duration of the curtailment. Unsurprisingly, unions seeing their members face such measures will often seek to utilize s. 54 of the Labour Relations Code (the “Code”) in order to insert itself into the employer’s process, and gain both administrative and monetary remedies.
S. 54 of the Code requires that an employer notify the union 60 days prior to implementing a measure or change that affects the terms, conditions or security of employment of a significant number of employees, such as the closure of a plant, mill, or mine. S. 54 requires the union and the employer to then work together to creatively solve problems by developing an adjustment plan, which may include alternatives to the proposed measure, human resource planning, employee retraining, severance, etc. Breaches of the s. 54 notice requirements often result in an award of lost wages for all affected employees for the duration of the notice period, at significant cost to the employer.
Since around 2015, there have been a number of decisions from the Labour Relations Board (“Board”) which attempted to define when a temporary lay-off triggers the notification requirement of s. 54. The consensus which emerged was that short-term lay-offs lasting only a few weeks will not trigger s. 54. These decisions left both employers and unions wondering: at what point will a temporary lay-off trigger s. 54? What if the lay-off is longer than a few weeks, but still not permanent?
In a reconsideration decision published earlier this year, Catalyst Paper Corporation (Crofton Mill), 2025 BCLRB 14, the Board was faced with a question at first instance: when does a medium-length curtailment trigger s. 54 of the Code?
The panel led by Board Chair Glougie commented that temporary curtailments are part of the inherent “ebb and flow” of work at a plant, mine, or mill. Recognizing the need to provide specific guidance to the industry battered by global trade forces, the Board determined that:
…in the context of resource-based industries specifically and for the purpose of providing some guidance to the community going forward, the Board will presumptively find temporary layoffs intended to last no more than twelve months to be medium-term layoffs which do not trigger Section 54, whether or not a recall date is given at the time the layoff takes effect. This also means that, where all of the other requirements of Section 54 are met, a layoff of more than 12 months will presumptively trigger Section 54, regardless of whether a recall date is given.
In reaching this decision, the Board reasoned that a medium-term layoff is not the type of change that would be ameliorated by the kinds of remedies available under s. 54 (which typically address the ending of employment), nor would a medium-term layoff cause employees to leave their communities in search of new work.
Temporary lay-offs, of 12 months or less, will therefore benefit from a presumption that the notification requirements under s. 54 will not be triggered for employers operating in the natural resource sector—provided that the temporary layoff is not intended to last more than twelve months.
Presumptions however, can be rebutted. Further, resource employers cannot characterize a permanent closure as a medium-length curtailment in order to avoid s. 54 of the Code and their obligations to engage in the development of an adjustment plan with the union. Finally, if a medium-length curtailment rolls into a permanent closure, intentionally or unintentionally, s. 54 would be triggered at a later date.
The Board’s decision in Catalyst Paper 2025 is a welcome bright-line clarification for employers and unions operating in BC’s natural resource sector, when lay-offs are required, especially when it is not clear whether or not a curtailment will result in a permanent closure.
For further resources and analysis, contact your Harris lawyer.
