FPSLREB Decisions

The bargaining agent made a bad-faith bargaining complaint against the employer, alleging that the employer failed to disclose that it was about to end a number of call-centre workers’ term contracts early and that it would not extend those of other call-centre workers that expired in May 2023. The effect was that a large number of call-centre workers did not receive a $2500 signing bonus that the bargaining agent had negotiated because their employment ended before it and the employer signed a new collective agreement on June 27, 2023. The first issue was whether the employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose that information to the bargaining agent. The Board concluded that the employer made its decision before concluding the collective agreement and that it had a significant enough impact on collective bargaining that it should have been disclosed to the bargaining agent. The Board concluded that the warnings that the employer provided about potential job losses were too vague and were contradicted by increased hiring, so that the bargaining agent was not put on notice about job losses during the critical window of time when eligibility for the $2500 signing bonus was at stake. The Board concluded that the employer did not fulfil its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its intention to end the term contracts early. The second issue was whether the bargaining agent’s decision to ratify and sign a collective agreement after being informed of the employer’s decision cured the breach of the duty to bargain in good faith. The Board concluded that it did not. The timing of the employer’s decision, made during a strike, and its disclosure after the strike ended deprived the bargaining agent of the opportunity to negotiate different terms and conditions, in light of that decision. The third issue was remedy. The Board found that there was no basis for an award of general damages for a breach of the duty of unsolicited disclosure. The loss that the bargaining agent claimed was economic, which would not be compensated by general damages. The Board decided not to award damages for the lost opportunity to bargain because the likelihood that the bargaining agent would have negotiated different eligibility conditions for the $2500 signing bonus, even if there had been timely disclosure, was too low. The Board issued a declaration of a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.

Complaint allowed.