FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

25rights under the Act. The Employer must rebut the presumption contained in the reverse onusprovided for in s. 11(1)(e) by showing that the decision was not tainted by any element of antiunionanimus which would have the effect of intimidating or coercing employees from theexercise of their rights under the Act.[112] Mr. Holodryga testified that many of the other plants operated by the WGIWestman Group were unionized facilities. He also testified that he became aware of the unionorganizing drive when approached by some employees upon his arrival at the workplace onJune 21, 2011. He also testified that the Production Manager advised him on June 21, 2011that a production foreman had also been approached about signing a union card.2011 CanLII 72774 (SK LRB)[113] The testimony established that in response to these events, Mr. Holodryga andMs. Outerbridge called a meeting of the senior staff after he had consulted with the Employer’slegal counsel in Manitoba as well as the Employer’s Human Resources Department inWinnipeg. Following those conversations, he called a meeting with Ms. Outerbridge and othermembers of his management team. Mr. Holodryga testified that the message he delivered tothe management team was that there were rumours regarding a possible union organizingcampaign. He testified that his instructions were that the members of the management teamwere to stay neutral and not interfere, and if approached by employees they were to refer thoseemployees to either himself or to Ms. Outerbridge. There was no evidence that they wereapproached by any additional employees following this instruction being given.[114] There was evidence from Mr. Copeland that he had been seen by Mr. Holodrygain the employee parking lot when he was speaking to other employees about signing a unionsupport card. Mr. Holodryga denied having seen Mr. Copeland. In this respect, the Boardbelieves the evidence of Mr. Holodryga that he did not observe any such incident.[115] The Board can, therefore, find no evidence that the lay offs were in any waymotivated by an anti-union animus. As such, we find that the Employer has satisfied the onusplaced upon it pursuant to s. 11(1)(e). The application by the Union under s. 11(1)(e) istherefore dismissed.