On March 27, 2026, arbitrator Claire Brassard dismissed an application for a safeguard order filed by the Association des avocats et notaires de l’État du Québec (“ANEQ”). The application arose from a grievance challenging a change to the remote work regime, which reduced remote work from three days per week to two.
The decision reiterates that a safeguard order is, by nature, temporary and exceptional. It also underscores the need to demonstrate a clearly established right at the interim stage before such relief can be granted.
The Dispute
ANEQ challenged an amendment to the Secrétariat du Conseil du trésor’s framework policy on remote work for public service employees (the “Remote Work Policy”). The amendment reduced remote work to a maximum of two days per week, down from the three days that had been permitted since 2022. ANEQ argued that the change is unreasonable, abusive, and unjustified. It also claimed that the three-day hybrid arrangement, in place for several years now, has become a condition of employment. As such, article 59 of the Labour Code requires that it be maintained during the current bargaining process.
The employer took the opposite position. It argued that remote work is not a condition of employment, but a management tool for organizing work time, which is not set out in the collective agreement. On that basis, it maintained that it is entitled to modify the policy unilaterally.
At its core, this dispute hinged on a question of legal classification: is remote work a protected working condition, or simply an administrative tool for organizing work?
The Legal Framework: A Temporary and Exceptional Remedy
The arbitrator confirmed that the power to issue a safeguard order comes from article 100.12(g) of the Labour Code. She pointed out that this remedy exists solely to temporarily protect the parties’ rights while a case is decided. In this case, granting the order would have meant suspending the employer’s Remote Work Policy before a full hearing on the merits. This elevated the threshold for intervention.
The arbitrator noted that, to restore the previous situation (status quo ante), an applicant must demonstrate a strong prima facie case, meaning a clearly established right. A mere arguable case is not enough: the right must appear clear and convincing at first glance.
She also noted that, although courts often consider irreparable harm and the balance of convenience, most arbitral decisions confirm that the absence of a clear right alone is sufficient to dismiss the application, without analyzing the other criteria.
Analysis: No Sufficiently Clear Right
Remote Work Policy and Collective Agreement
The arbitrator noted that the 2026 Remote Work Policy, like the 2022 version, was not negotiated between the parties. It resulted from consultations and expressly allows the employer, upon reasonable notice, to cancel remote work days at any time through the deputy minister. The collective agreement, for its part, preserves managerial rights. Article 7 states that the employer retains full exercise of its managerial authority, subject only to the terms of the agreement.
At this stage, the arbitrator found no sufficiently clear basis in the collective agreement to support ANEQ’s position. She also found no evidence of an abusive exercise of management rights.
Article 59 of the Labour Code: Condition of Employment or Administrative Tool?
ANEQ’s argument under article 59 of the Labour Code required the arbitrator to determine whether remote work constitutes a condition of employment or simply a method of organizing work. She found that the evidence available at this interim stage did not allow for a proper analysis of that question, and that this could only be carried out at the merits stage. She held that when an application requires interpretation, analysis, distinction, or legal classification of contested rights, caution is called for, and interim relief should be refused.
Key Takeaways
- A safeguard order is an exceptional, temporary measure used only to protect rights pending a full decision.
- To restore the previous status quo, a party must demonstrate a clearly established and strong legal right, not merely a plausible argument.
- Where legal interpretation is required—such as determining whether remote work is an employment condition or an administrative tool—the matter should proceed to a full hearing rather than be decided at the interim stage.