A board ruling in 2021 had already flagged the deal but nobody acted on it
A Nova Scotia employer arrived before the Labour Board confident it had a valid agreement protecting its operations during a potential work stoppage. It did not.
In a March 6, 2026, decision, Labour Board Chair Jasmine Walsh ruled that the 2021 Essential Services Agreement between EMC Emergency Medical Care Incorporated and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Local 015 was legally void, not because it had been terminated, amended or renegotiated, but because the employer's workforce had grown dramatically and the agreement was never updated to reflect it. Both parties were left with no valid agreement, in a legal strike and lockout position, and with no remedy available to the Board under the application before it.
Between 2021 and 2026, EMC's weekly shift totals climbed from 139 to 219, driven by rising call volumes. The 2021 agreement included a Schedule "A" that captured 80% of that year's regularly scheduled shifts, satisfying the legal requirement to identify the employee classifications and numbers needed at any one time during a work stoppage. By 2026, Schedule "A" reflected only 64% of EMC's essential health services work. The workforce had grown substantially; the agreement had not. This failure to update was particularly striking given that a 2021 Board ruling in Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. EMC Emergency Medical Care Inc., 2021 NSLB 78 had already declared the same ESA deprived employees of a meaningful right to strike, yet neither party had sought to amend it.
The union argued the document was unambiguous, stating in its submissions: " The parties agreed that the essential level of staffing was 80% of the regular schedule and agreed to a very specific weekly schedule that is attached as Schedule 'A.' At paragraph 5, the ESA describes Schedule 'A' as the 'agreed essential level.' Unless amended by the Board, the parties are bound by Schedule 'A' under Section 10 of the Act."
The employer proposed two interpretive paths: that the agreement required either 80% or 64% staffing of the current workforce, and separately advocated for a third proportion of 74%, drawn from proposals made during mediation. The employer also made submissions about proposed amendments to the 2021 ESA as an alternative course.
The fatal clause hiding in plain sight
Chair Walsh was not persuaded by either party's position. The Board found that paragraph 2(a)(i) of the agreement and its Schedule "A" were irreconcilable in a way that rendered the agreement void.
Without a valid agreement, the Board had no jurisdiction to assess whether either party had been deprived of meaningful bargaining rights, and the application was dismissed.
The employer had sought to be directed to binding interest arbitration as a remedy, but that option requires a valid agreement as a threshold condition. Without one, the Board had nothing to act on.
Good faith bargaining and the cost of leaving it too late
The Board found that neither party had made serious efforts to renegotiate the agreement before the dispute escalated. Walsh cited Toronto (City) v. Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416, which stated: "… The Act contemplates good faith ESA bargaining, a process which should be respected and is expected. Disputes such as these should not normally arrive at the Board without significant prior effort to resolve them by the parties themselves."
The parties are now in a legal strike and lockout position without a settled agreement. The Board noted, however, that both parties should not consider themselves without recourse: either party may file an application under Section 9 of the Act to have the Board resolve the outstanding terms of their ESA on their behalf, and the parties are not limited by any failure to comply with the Section 6 timelines. As the decision states in closing: "The parties do not have a settled ESA. One must either be negotiated between them, or an application may be filed with the Board to resolve the outstanding terms of their ESA on their behalf."
See EMC Emergency Medical Care Incorporated v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Local 015, 2026 NSLB 26
