商业 · 钢铁业工作岗位

渥太华对 Stelco 发出的最后通牒，能否在裁员生效前保住工作岗位？

汉密尔顿工人收到裁员通知之际，渥太华正要求公司提交计划，以履行收购承诺。法律威胁已经明确；它能否保住就业仍未得到证明。

播出 2026年10月8日 UTC 21:56文字 2026年10月8日 UTC 21:59阅读需 9 分钟52 个来源

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

新闻追踪第 7 天

1 篇报道28 家媒体52 个来源5 个视频

暂无标注日期的事件

第 1 次更新10月8日 21:56 UTC渥太华对 Stelco 发出的最后通牒，能否在裁员生效前保住工作岗位？当前位置

在裁员通知变成失去的薪水之前，渥太华能否强制执行保护 Stelco 工作岗位的承诺？这正是工业部长 Mélanie Joly 当前面临的考验：联邦政府正要求这家钢铁公司的美国所有者提交就业计划，而汉密尔顿的工人已经收到通知。²

Joly 给 Stelco 及其所有者 Cleveland-Cliffs 五个工作日，要求说明他们将如何履行与2024年收购案相关的承诺。政府表示，这些承诺包括维持同等规模的工会工人队伍。Cleveland-Cliffs 将关税、贸易中断和需求减少列为缩减运营并可能在汉密尔顿和 Nanticoke 裁员多达500人的原因。商业压力与收购义务如今正面冲突。¹ ²

关键事实

5个工作日提交就业计划的期限 2 6
多达500人两家工厂可能面临的裁员人数 2
3轮汉密尔顿工人将在三周内收到通知 2

对 Jordan Williams 来说，这一威胁已变得切身。此前他在工厂工作了四年；2026年10月7日，他早上6时开始上班，并在当天收到裁员通知；CBC 同期报道说，通知是在他下班时送达的。他实际离职的日期尚未明确。通知是事态的具体升级，但不一定意味着雇佣关系或工资就在那一刻终止。² ³⁵

汉密尔顿工会 United Steelworkers Local 1005 表示，通知分三轮发出：10月8日报道当周、接下来一周，以及再下一周。Ron Wells 是该地方分会主席。分批发出的通知意味着，渥太华仍在处理应对措施时，工人就已经要面对各自的去留决定。² ³⁵ ³⁶

人数规模需要谨慎解读。CTV News 于10月7日刊出的报道称，汉密尔顿将裁员500人。CBC News 更新的10月8日报道称，汉密尔顿和 Nanticoke 两地可能裁员多达500人。较新的两厂说法取代了先前仅涉及汉密尔顿的表述；这并未确定最终分配人数，也不意味着500人已经被裁。⁴ ²

另有一篇10月6日的报道称，汉密尔顿约有350名工人预定被裁。这是报道提到的一个较小群体，不应再与可能裁员的500人相加。这两个数字之间的关系仍不清楚。³⁹

报道中的时间表也发生了变化。TheRegional 在10月6日的报道中称，汉密尔顿约350人的裁员安排在10月9日星期五。Canadian Press 于10月8日刊载在 Global News 和 Winnipeg Free Press 的报道则称，首轮裁员安排在10月11日星期日。最新报道的时间表是10月11日；日期差异究竟是因为计划调整还是涉及不同群体，尚未得到核实。截至10月8日，两个日期都还没有成为已完成裁员的日期。³⁹ ⁴⁵ ⁴⁷

渥太华究竟能强制执行什么

据报道，Joly 于10月5日星期一将信函寄给 Stelco 总裁 Paul Simon，并对宣布的裁员表示“极度失望”。一些报道将答复期限简略地说成五天，但 CBC 和 CTV 报道的是五个工作日。寄出日期并不能确定期限的确切截止时间：收件日期、计算规则、具体时刻和完整的截止期限条款均无法得知。⁹ ¹³ ⁶ ¹

这些就业保证早于所有权变更。Cleveland-Cliffs 于2024年10月30日宣布，已获得《加拿大投资法》和战略创新基金的最终批准，当时 François-Philippe Champagne 担任工业部长。公司的正式完成公告确认，收购于11月1日完成。这些是与收购相关的承诺，并非为了平息当前裁员而首次提出的保证。²⁶ ²⁷ ²⁵

这些义务具有约束力。
Mélanie Joly 43

Joly 质疑公司试图以加美贸易战为由，裁掉其承诺要保留的工作岗位。她的警告还指出一种矛盾：一方面支持特朗普的关税，另一方面又称其影响是“天灾”。这是有力的政治论点；但法律检验仍取决于具体承诺和实际情况。⁴¹ ⁴³

根据 CBC 10月7日的报道，她的信函表示，渥太华已准备诉诸法院，并指出《加拿大投资法》下可能采取的补救措施：下令履行承诺、要求剥离资产或处以罚款。这些是可能的执法结果，并非已经发布的命令。³

完整信函、就业承诺及相关执法条款未能供人独立审查。因此，就业基准、期限、例外情况和完整措辞均尚未明确。也没有证据表明已提起诉讼或法院已认定存在违约。称一项义务具有约束力，与证明某次具体裁员违反该义务，是不同的步骤。⁶ ⁸ ⁹

所有者的回应着眼于商业因素

Cleveland-Cliffs 已宣布无限期停产 Hamilton Works 的冷轧和涂层业务。这是暂停特定业务，并非已证实关闭整个汉密尔顿工厂。其首席执行官 Lourenco Goncalves 于9月30日为停产的权利辩护，并表示如果渥太华起诉，“我们会为自己辩护”。²³ ¹⁶

10月1日，Goncalves 质疑可能提起诉讼的合理性。到了10月3日，他主张贸易战改变了 Cleveland-Cliffs 收购 Stelco 时的情况。10月7日，他否定了国有化的可能。这些立场表明他反对干预，但既不能证明承诺存在豁免，也没有对 Joly 10月5日信函中的每项要求作出经核实的回应。¹⁷ ¹⁹ ¹⁸

CBC《Power & Politics》的一场讨论称，联邦和省政府曾提出支持资金，Cleveland-Cliffs 拒绝接受；节目还称 Goncalves 的立场是受影响员工没有工作可做。相关提议的金额、项目、日期和条件，以及拒绝一事，在此均未得到独立核实。这一说法不能证明存在有文件记录的救助方案，也不能证明所有可能的资金安排都会失败。³

调岗是另一种可能的应对方式，但尚未得到证实。Cleveland-Cliffs 表示，随着生产集中到 Haldimand County，数量“相当可观”的受影响汉密尔顿工人可以调往 Nanticoke。工会对此持怀疑态度，并称空缺岗位寥寥。尚无已确认的调岗人数承诺、经核实的工作机会数量、条件或接受人数。对工人而言，只有机会真实可行时，可能的调岗才算保住工作。²¹ ³⁹

公司还表示，如果加拿大和美国达成钢铁贸易协议，受影响的工人将被召回。这是有条件的说法，并非已有日期的协议，也不保证复工时间表。Williams 另称冷轧生产正转移到美国；但尚无经确认的美国目的地、转移产量或转移日期能够证实这一说法。Nanticoke 的计划本身既不能证明也不能否定这一点。⁴⁷ ²

截至 CBC 10月8日的报道，该媒体尚未收到 Stelco 对其询问的回应。现有报道没有证实公司已完成一份回应渥太华要求的就业计划，也没有证实之后已向法院提交文件。这并不能证明双方没有进行过沟通。² ⁶

来源与支持文件

广播报道：CTV Edmonton，10月6日 ¹；CBC 关于汉密尔顿通知的报道，10月8日 ²；CBC《Power & Politics》，10月7日 ³；CTV National News，10月6日 ⁴；Global National，10月6日 ⁵。

联邦政府的要求：CBC 关于就业计划的报道 ⁶；United Steelworkers 10月1日要求审查合规情况的信函——并非 Joly 的信函 ⁷；The Globe and Mail ⁸；由 St. Catharines Standard 刊载的 Toronto Star 报道 ⁹；Vancouver Television ¹⁰；CBC 对 Joly 的视频报道 ¹¹；Money.ca ¹²；Daily Commercial News ¹³；National Observer ¹⁴；iNFOnews ¹⁵。

公司立场与就业背景：CBC 关于停产和诉讼威胁的报道 ¹⁶；The Globe and Mail 关于诉讼 ¹⁷ 和国有化 ¹⁸ 的报道；Canadian Business News ¹⁹；Global News 关于资金立场的标题 ²⁰；Simcoe Reformer 关于 Nanticoke 空缺岗位的报道 ²¹；The Globe and Mail 关于可能采取法律行动的报道 ²²；CBC 关于工人不确定性的报道 ²³；Juno News ²⁴。

收购文件：Cleveland-Cliffs 的完成公告 ²⁵ 和批准公告 ²⁶；联邦部长声明 ²⁷；Business Wire 公告 ²⁸ ²⁹；SEC 文件 ³⁰；公司托管的文件 PDF ³¹、完成交易 PDF ³² 和文件网页 ³³；Business Wire 的批准公告 ³⁴。

通知及更多报道：CBC 视频 ³⁵ 和分三周发出通知的报道 ³⁶；BNN Bloomberg ³⁷；CBC 关于法院背景的报道 ³⁸；TheRegional ³⁹；CityNews 视频 ⁴⁰；CBC 关于关税警告的报道 ⁴¹；Philippine Canadian Inquirer ⁴²；The1News 对警告 ⁴³ 和工人反应报道 ⁴⁴ 的转载；Global News/Canadian Press ⁴⁵；The Epoch Times ⁴⁶；Winnipeg Free Press/Canadian Press ⁴⁷。

其他收购相关资料：Newswire 刊载的部长声明 ⁴⁸；CBC 关于批准的报道 ⁴⁹；The Globe and Mail 刊载的声明 ⁵⁰；CBC 的精简版 ⁵¹；联邦政府《加拿大投资法》概述 ⁵²。

播出原貌 27 行

Stelco layoff notices are reaching workers while Ottawa demands a plan to protect their jobs.
Up to 500 workers face potential cuts across Hamilton and Nanticoke. The American owner has five business days to explain how it will meet employment commitments attached to its takeover, with possible legal action if it does not.
Can those commitments protect employment before the notices become lost paycheques?
Jordan Williams received a layoff notice on October 7 after four years at the plant. He began his shift at 6 a.m.; the notice reached him at the end of that shift. His effective layoff date remains unknown.
A notice makes the threat concrete for an individual worker. It does not establish when wages stop, or mean that all the potential cuts have happened. That distinction matters while Ottawa's response process is still under way.
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly has demanded a plan addressing the acquisition commitments. Her letter to Stelco president Paul Simon was sent October 5. The response period is five business days, not five calendar days; its exact expiry is unknown.
The sending date alone cannot establish a legal deadline. The receipt date, counting rules, time of day and complete deadline sentence are unavailable. The complete federal letter, employment undertakings and underlying enforcement provisions have not been independently examined.
The earlier figure described 500 Hamilton layoffs. The updated description is up to 500 potential cuts across Hamilton and Nanticoke. That is an upper limit, not a confirmed total already laid off, and the final plant-by-plant allocation remains unclear.
A separate figure describes roughly 350 Hamilton workers scheduled for layoffs. It is a narrower group, not an additional 350 to add to the potential 500. The relationship between those figures is not fully established.
Hamilton and Nanticoke are separate operations. Cleveland-Cliffs wants to concentrate production in Haldimand County and says affected Hamilton workers could transfer to Nanticoke. Whether those transfers provide actual employment depends on openings and terms that have not been established.
The workforce figures are about 600 steelworkers in Hamilton and 1,250 to 1,300 unionized employees in Nanticoke. The Hamilton figure does not identify every worker as unionized. With the cuts and their allocation uncertain, neither figure supports a precise percentage known to be losing employment.
Cleveland-Cliffs announced final Investment Canada Act and Strategic Innovation Fund approvals on October 30, 2024, when François-Philippe Champagne was industry minister. The acquisition closed November 1. The employment assurances preceded ownership; they were not first offered in response to these layoffs.
The acquisition was described as a $3.4 billion deal, but the currency and whether that measured equity or enterprise value are not established. The government says the commitments include maintaining the same level of unionized workers. Their complete wording, employment baseline, duration and exceptions remain unavailable.
Joly has warned that the announced cuts could conflict with binding acquisition conditions. Her letter expressed “extreme disappointment,” and she has said the government is prepared to go to court. That warning is not a court finding that a breach occurred.
Joly also challenges the company's attempt to invoke the trade war as justification for cutting jobs it committed to maintain. Her argument points to the contradiction between supporting Trump's tariffs and treating their effects as an “act of God.” Whether that argument supports enforcement depends on the actual commitments and circumstances.
The potential remedies include an order directing compliance, divestiture or monetary penalties under the Investment Canada Act. None is established as ordered. A government assertion that a commitment is binding and a court decision that particular layoffs violate it are different things.
Cleveland-Cliffs announced indefinite idling of Hamilton Works' cold-rolled and coated operations. That is a suspension of specified operations, not an established closure of the entire plant. The company cites trade disruptions, U.S. tariffs, reduced demand and other market pressures.
Williams alleges cold-rolled production is moving to the United States. That allegation is unverified: no confirmed U.S. destination, transferred volume or transfer date is established. Concentrating production at Nanticoke does not, by itself, prove or disprove a separate move south.
Lourenco Goncalves defended the company's right to idle Hamilton operations on September 30 and said it would defend itself if Ottawa sued. His name is Lourenco Goncalves, not Lorenzo Gonzalez. His resistance does not establish an exemption from the employment commitments.
On October 1, Goncalves questioned the logic of a possible lawsuit. By October 3, he argued that the Canada–U.S. trade war had changed the circumstances of the 2024 purchase. On October 7, he dismissed nationalization. Those positions are not a verified answer to every demand in Joly's October 5 letter.
The claim that federal and provincial governments offered support funding, and that Cleveland-Cliffs declined it, remains independently unverified. The amounts, programs, dates and terms are unknown. Goncalves' position is that there is no work for the affected employees.
His assertion that no amount of money would have prevented the slowdown and job losses does not establish that every possible funding arrangement would fail to preserve employment. There is no verified rescue-package value or documented refusal on specified terms.
Hamilton's union is United Steelworkers Local 1005, not Local 105; its president is Ron Wells. The union describes three waves of notices: the week of October 8, the following week and the week after that, a three-week rollout.
The latest first-cut schedule is Sunday, October 11. An earlier schedule placed roughly 350 Hamilton layoffs on Friday, October 9. The reason for the difference is unknown: neither a revised timetable nor different worker groups has been verified. Both dates remain prospective on October 8.
Cleveland-Cliffs says a “significant” number of affected Hamilton workers could transfer to Nanticoke. The union is skeptical and describes few openings. No numerical transfer commitment, verified offer count, terms, acceptance count or available-position total is established. A possible transfer is not yet a preserved job.
The company also ties recalls to Canada and the United States reaching a steel trade agreement. That is conditional, not a guaranteed return-to-work date. The answer to whether the commitments protect these jobs is still unresolved: no completed plan satisfying Ottawa's demand is established.
As of October 8, Stelco had not answered the inquiry about these developments. Neither a completed jobs plan nor a subsequent court filing is established; that does not prove no communication occurred. Legal penalties or divestiture would not automatically return workers to their shifts.