The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the hospital contravened the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by unilaterally altering the employee benefit package after the union was certified but before a first collective agreement was reached.
The hospital argued it was acting bona fide in response to budgetary pressures and carrying on 'business as usual'.
The Board reviewed its approach to statutory freeze cases, noting the limitations of the 'business as usual' and 'reasonable expectations' tests.
The Board held that the statutory freeze is intended to bolster the bargaining process and reinforce the union's status as exclusive bargaining agent.
Because the benefit changes affected employees as a collectivity and were the kind of thing the employer would normally be obliged to bargain about, the hospital was prohibited from implementing them unilaterally.
The Board found a breach of the statutory freeze provisions and referred the matter back to the parties to attempt a settlement on remedy.
