The collective agreement contained no express restrictions
Controversial posters led to the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 21 filing a grievance against the City of Regina.
The employer ordered the union to remove posters it had placed on workplace notice boards urging members to support the “yes” side in an upcoming city-wide referendum. The referendum concerned the plan to impose a public-private partnership (P3) to operate the city’s waste water treatment facility.
While the union was a part of a coalition strongly opposed to the P3 project, the City of Regina’s city council had unanimously endorsed the P3 approach. The union complied with the employer’s directive to remove the posters but filed a grievance demanding the employer be required to refrain from interfering with union notices in the future.
According to the union, the parties’ collective agreement gave it the right to put up posters without employer approval. The employer’s order to remove the posters violated the agreement as well as the union’s freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The union regularly posts notices on about 60 notice boards, the majority of which are in workplace locations not normally open to the public. Traditionally, the union posts notices concerning regular membership meetings, social events, contact information for union representatives and personal announcements like births.
The posters in question called on members to “PLEDGE TO VOTE YES” and asked employees “On Sept 25 vote to Keep water public.” The union argued this notice was well within the restrictions of the collective agreement, which stated the employer is required to provide notice boards for the sole use of the union, for the purpose of posting notices “of interest” to the union.
The employer, however, argued the contentious, high-profile nature of the P3 campaign made the posters by definition argumentative, provocative and inflammatory.
Encouraging employees to vote against the P3 model was overtly political, the employer said, and while the union had a right to launch a campaign in the media it did not have the right to wage a campaign in the workplace.
The arbitration board — made up of chair Allen Ponak, employer nominee Larry Leblanc and union nominee Merv Simonot — sustained the union’s grievance.
“In our view,” the board said in its decision, “the information contained in the referendum poster that the union posted on workplace notice boards was consistent with its rights under the collective bargaining agreement and did not contain language, depictions, or encouragement that might run afoul of accepted standards for workplace notice boards.”
Unions have significant wiggle room to post notices in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with the management’s control and direction of the workforce or promote disobedience or labour relations conflict, the board said.
The relevant language in the parties’ collective agreement contained no express restrictions, the board found, and if the parties had wished to place limitations on what might be posted, they could have easily done so.
With respect to remedy, the board simply made a declaratory ruling that the collective agreement was violated when the employer directed the union to remove its posters from union notice boards.
Reference: City of Regina and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 21. Arbitration board — Allen Ponak, chair; Larry Leblanc, employer nominee; Merv Simonot, union nominee. Jim McLellan for the employer, Guy Marsden for the union. March 6, 2016.
The employer ordered the union to remove posters it had placed on workplace notice boards urging members to support the “yes” side in an upcoming city-wide referendum. The referendum concerned the plan to impose a public-private partnership (P3) to operate the city’s waste water treatment facility.
While the union was a part of a coalition strongly opposed to the P3 project, the City of Regina’s city council had unanimously endorsed the P3 approach. The union complied with the employer’s directive to remove the posters but filed a grievance demanding the employer be required to refrain from interfering with union notices in the future.
According to the union, the parties’ collective agreement gave it the right to put up posters without employer approval. The employer’s order to remove the posters violated the agreement as well as the union’s freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The union regularly posts notices on about 60 notice boards, the majority of which are in workplace locations not normally open to the public. Traditionally, the union posts notices concerning regular membership meetings, social events, contact information for union representatives and personal announcements like births.
The posters in question called on members to “PLEDGE TO VOTE YES” and asked employees “On Sept 25 vote to Keep water public.” The union argued this notice was well within the restrictions of the collective agreement, which stated the employer is required to provide notice boards for the sole use of the union, for the purpose of posting notices “of interest” to the union.
The employer, however, argued the contentious, high-profile nature of the P3 campaign made the posters by definition argumentative, provocative and inflammatory.
Encouraging employees to vote against the P3 model was overtly political, the employer said, and while the union had a right to launch a campaign in the media it did not have the right to wage a campaign in the workplace.
The arbitration board — made up of chair Allen Ponak, employer nominee Larry Leblanc and union nominee Merv Simonot — sustained the union’s grievance.
“In our view,” the board said in its decision, “the information contained in the referendum poster that the union posted on workplace notice boards was consistent with its rights under the collective bargaining agreement and did not contain language, depictions, or encouragement that might run afoul of accepted standards for workplace notice boards.”
Unions have significant wiggle room to post notices in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with the management’s control and direction of the workforce or promote disobedience or labour relations conflict, the board said.
The relevant language in the parties’ collective agreement contained no express restrictions, the board found, and if the parties had wished to place limitations on what might be posted, they could have easily done so.
With respect to remedy, the board simply made a declaratory ruling that the collective agreement was violated when the employer directed the union to remove its posters from union notice boards.
Reference: City of Regina and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 21. Arbitration board — Allen Ponak, chair; Larry Leblanc, employer nominee; Merv Simonot, union nominee. Jim McLellan for the employer, Guy Marsden for the union. March 6, 2016.
