The applicant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by denying recognition bonus payments to employees who participated in a lawful strike, while paying the bonus to employees who crossed the picket line.
The employer argued that the bonus was tied to production and was reduced for any absence, relying on its discretion under the plan.
The Board found that the employer had not uniformly applied the reduction to other absences, such as a subsequent sit-in by non-striking employees.
The Board concluded that the employer's exercise of discretion was motivated by anti-union animus and discriminated against the striking employees contrary to section 67(a) of the Labour Relations Act.
The employer was ordered to compensate the striking employees.