Marlene Rivier

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.

The applicants challenged the identification of the Chaplain job class as the male comparator for the Social Work and Psychometrist job classes in the employer's pay equity plan.

The Tribunal determined as a preliminary matter whether current and former incumbents of other female job classes that also use the Chaplain as their male comparator were entitled to notice of the proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to provide notice to all such current and former employees, as a finding that the Chaplain is not an appropriate comparator could significantly affect their pay equity entitlements.