Ross W. Pirrie

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer discharged an employee, Tom Robinson, for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The employer claimed the discharge was for cause due to absenteeism, tardiness, and a machine malfunction incident.

Applying the reverse onus under section 91(5) of the Act, the majority of the Board found that while the employee had a poor record, the employer's reasons were tainted by anti-union animus, evidenced by artificial disciplinary records and knowledge of his union activities.

The Board ordered the employee reinstated with compensation.

A dissenting board member would have dismissed the complaint, finding no anti-union motivation.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties subsequently reached a collective agreement and the application was withdrawn.

However, the Board issued a ruling on an evidentiary issue raised during the hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence of negotiations that took place after the application was filed.

The majority of the Board held that the cut-off point for relevant evidence in a section 40a application is the date the application is filed, and evidence of post-application bargaining is generally inadmissible.

One Board member dissented.