FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

33[143] In respect of the complaint under Section 11(1)(a), I disagree with the majorityview as well. It was clear from the evidence of Ms. Outerbridge that Mr. Lepper was in chargeand was leading those meetings. It would have been helpful, in my opinion, to have heard fromMr. Lepper and have his testimony tested through cross-examination by the Union.[144] I find that it is suspicious that the Employer suddenly began to hold “tool box”meetings for the first time on June 24, 2011, when Mr. Lepper visited from Winnipeg. Ms.Outerbridge testified that these were the first such meetings ever held by the Employer inRegina. These meetings were co-incident with the organizing campaign.[145] I am also of the view that the Employer crossed the line when it proposed anemployee association be established. This, in my view was a direct challenge to the organizingcampaign currently ongoing and was intended to dissuade employees from supporting theUnion in its drive.2011 CanLII 72774 (SK LRB)[146] For these reasons, I would have found a breach of s. 11(1)(a) of the Act withrespect to the captive audience meetings held by the Employer.Remedy:[147] By way of remedy, I would have done the following:1) re-instated Nat Dunbar to his position with the Employer effective as ofthe date of his layoff; and2) provide monetary loss, subject to usual mitigation, for Dusty Copeland,Nat Dunbar and Ha Phan, the calculation of which I would leave to theparties to determine, but, in the event they were unable to agree withrespect to the quantum to be paid by way of monetary loss, to have thatamount determined by the Board.John McCormick, Board Member