Union already had all the information in the memo and had the opportunity to disseminate it to members
A Regina hotel did not commit an unfair labour practice when it sent a memo to employees regarding its position in labour negotiations, the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board has ruled.
In the fall of 2007, the West Harvest Inn began negotiating with its union for a new collective agreement. The two sides agreed on some issues but at an Oct. 15, 2007, meeting, the hotel said any agreement must be based on five of its proposed terms, including wages. The union disagreed and cut off talks.
After the meeting, the union president passed out buttons and spoke briefly to a few members on how things were proceeding but didn’t elaborate.
The hotel sent a letter to the union confirming its position and sent out a memo with all employees’ paycheques on Oct. 19 outlining its proposals on the issues it was insisting on. Many employees were confused because the total wage increase was different from what the union had told them. The hotel included a clothing allowance in the calculations while the union didn’t consider it part of the proposed wage increase. The union also felt it wasn’t the employer’s place to communicate the issues to the employees and all the memo did was confuse them and undermine the union’s credibility.
The hotel argued the memo didn’t accuse the union of any misrepresentation and merely set out its position accurately. It had no intentions of undermining the union and sent the memo to all employees so no one was singled out.
The board found everything in the memo was outlined to the union previously so it could not be considered bargaining directly with employees. The union also had the opportunity to inform its members before the memo went out and all employees received it equally.
“There is little in the memo other than a straightforward recitation of the facts relating to the progress of the negotiations and a straightforward recitation of both what the employer wanted to take away from the employees in the next collective agreement and what it was prepared to give,” the board said. “There is nothing in the memo that even tried to persuade the reader of the employer’s position as being better than the union’s, much less anything the board finds would restrain, intimidate, threaten or coerce an employee of average intelligence and fortitude to accept the employer’s terms.”
The board found the hotel didn’t commit an unfair labour practice and dismissed the union’s complaint. See U.N.I.T.E.-H.E.R.E., Local 41 v. West Harvest Inn, 2007 CarswellSask 792 (Sask. L.R.B.).
In the fall of 2007, the West Harvest Inn began negotiating with its union for a new collective agreement. The two sides agreed on some issues but at an Oct. 15, 2007, meeting, the hotel said any agreement must be based on five of its proposed terms, including wages. The union disagreed and cut off talks.
After the meeting, the union president passed out buttons and spoke briefly to a few members on how things were proceeding but didn’t elaborate.
The hotel sent a letter to the union confirming its position and sent out a memo with all employees’ paycheques on Oct. 19 outlining its proposals on the issues it was insisting on. Many employees were confused because the total wage increase was different from what the union had told them. The hotel included a clothing allowance in the calculations while the union didn’t consider it part of the proposed wage increase. The union also felt it wasn’t the employer’s place to communicate the issues to the employees and all the memo did was confuse them and undermine the union’s credibility.
The hotel argued the memo didn’t accuse the union of any misrepresentation and merely set out its position accurately. It had no intentions of undermining the union and sent the memo to all employees so no one was singled out.
The board found everything in the memo was outlined to the union previously so it could not be considered bargaining directly with employees. The union also had the opportunity to inform its members before the memo went out and all employees received it equally.
“There is little in the memo other than a straightforward recitation of the facts relating to the progress of the negotiations and a straightforward recitation of both what the employer wanted to take away from the employees in the next collective agreement and what it was prepared to give,” the board said. “There is nothing in the memo that even tried to persuade the reader of the employer’s position as being better than the union’s, much less anything the board finds would restrain, intimidate, threaten or coerce an employee of average intelligence and fortitude to accept the employer’s terms.”
The board found the hotel didn’t commit an unfair labour practice and dismissed the union’s complaint. See U.N.I.T.E.-H.E.R.E., Local 41 v. West Harvest Inn, 2007 CarswellSask 792 (Sask. L.R.B.).
