Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem defended the use of replacement security workers while regular security officers remained on strike in March 2024 [1].
The dispute highlights a tension between the central bank's need for continuous operational security and the legal protections afforded to striking workers under federal labour laws.
Macklem said the Bank must maintain operational continuity and safety for staff and the public while the strike persists [1]. He said that the institution requires personnel in place to function securely while the dispute is being resolved [1].
However, the Federal Labour Board issued a conflicting directive. A spokesperson for the board said the Bank of Canada must cease using replacement security personnel immediately [2]. This order came with a 48-hour deadline for the bank to comply [3].
This was not the first time the institution faced such a directive during the dispute. A senior communications official for the Bank of Canada said this was the second time that month the bank had been told to stop using contract workers [4]. The official said the bank would comply within the 48-hour deadline [4].
Despite the board's order, Macklem continued to defend the strategy of employing replacement staff to ensure the headquarters in Ottawa remained secure [1]. The conflict pitted the governor's assessment of institutional risk against the regulatory mandates of the labour board [1], [2].
“"We need to ensure the Bank continues to operate safely and securely," said Tiff Macklem.”
This conflict underscores the legal boundaries of 'essential services' within government-adjacent institutions. While the Bank of Canada views security as a non-negotiable operational requirement for public safety, the Federal Labour Board's repeated interventions suggest that the bank's use of replacement workers may have exceeded legal limits, potentially weakening the bargaining power of the striking officers.
