The complainants, dependent contractor owner-operators, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.
Facing a severe economic downturn and shrinking work volume, a majority of the bargaining unit voted to re-open the collective agreement to replace a work-sharing (no-layoff) provision with a provision allowing layoffs by reverse order of seniority.
This resulted in the layoff of the complainants.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision to abandon work-sharing in favour of seniority-based layoffs was objectively justified by the deteriorating economic conditions and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
