FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

16production and inventory levels. They argued that there was no evidence of lay offs in 2010which the Union argued showed similar inventory levels.[78] The Union argued that the lay off of the employees without working notice wassuspicious, insofar as the Employer could have had additional output from these employeesduring a working notice period. They argued that this showed an eagerness on the part of theEmployer to “get them out of the workplace”. The Union was suspicious that the Employerdidn’t want the additional production from these employees and that they were “giving awaymoney”.[79] The Union argued that the layoffs were “sudden”, presumably in response to theorganizing campaign which the Employer was aware of prior to the lay offs. Furthermore, theyargued that the holding of the “tool box” meetings, which it characterized as “captive audiencemeetings” was to propose to the employees that they form an employee association instead ofjoining the Union. They argued that this point was highlighted when Mr. Dunbar attended hismeeting and the matter of an employee association was, according to the testimony provided byMr. Dunbar, not discussed.2011 CanLII 72774 (SK LRB)[80] The Union also questioned why Mr. Mason, who was the direct supervisor ofmany of the employees, was not called to testify. Nor, they argued, was he involved in thediscussion of which employees to lay off. He argued that Mr. Copeland and Mr. Dunbarparticularly were excellent employees who should not have been laid off. The Union arguedthat to lay these employees off went against common sense and logic.[81] The Union suggested that in its analysis of s. 11(1)(a), the Board should do athorough analysis of the section in accordance with the rules of statutory interpretation andanswer some questions which the Union felt were a problem with the wording of the section. Inaddition, the Union proposed the Board should use a more subjective test with respect to howthe communication might impact employees.[82] The Union summarized its requested relief as follows:1. Reinstatement of Nat Dunbar,2. Monetary relief with respect to Nat Dunbar, Dusty Copeland and Ha Phan,