The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that employees were laid off or discharged for union activity.
The respondent employer argued that it should not be required to proceed first with its evidence, asserting that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violates the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Board rejected this argument, reaffirming its previous jurisprudence that section 89 is remedial and civil in nature, not penal or quasi-criminal.
The Board directed the respondent to proceed first with its evidence in accordance with normal practice.
