The complainant alleged he was discharged by the respondent contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act for his union activities.
The respondent claimed the discharge was due to the complainant's involvement in overcharging a client.
The Board found that the respondent's actions, including circumventing the union's bargaining rights and abruptly discharging the complainant shortly before collective bargaining was to begin, demonstrated anti-union animus.
The Board concluded the discharge was tainted by anti-union motivation and ordered the complainant's reinstatement with compensation, subject to a reduction for a brief delay in filing the complaint.
