Support for union dropped signficantly after management spread word of possible shutdown and layoffs
The British Columbia Labour Relations Board has ruled a grocery store in Prince George, B.C., interfered with the formation of a union through unlawful conduct including intimidation of its employees.
In July 2006, the United Food and Commercial Workers began a campaign to organize the employees of Better Buy Market, a warehouse style grocery store. In August 2006, Larry Hyette, the owner of the store, learned from an employee of the union drive. He responded by calling a meeting with managers, office and sales staff and some workers. At the meeting, Hyette said he wasn’t happy about a union coming in and instructed those at the meeting to get more information and to be careful.
After the meeting, the warehouse supervisor approached an employee, Teresa Seminuk, and told her he knew there had been a union meeting at her house and there had been an insider there. Seminuk claimed later the supervisor had said “if the union came in, the employees would be laid off or have to work part time.”
Soon after, the store manager called Seminuk into his office and told her other employees had complained they had been misled into signing union cards. He also said she was the “ringleader of the union” and said Hyette, the owner, “was pissed and the pressure would be on.” The manager denied saying those words but did admit the comments about pressure and that Hyette wasn’t happy.
The day after talking to the manager, Seminuk was relayed a message from the warehouse supervisor that “if she was caught talking to any staff member, it would be assumed she was talking about the union and she could be written up.”
She discussed this with the manager, who told her if she was seen talking for “more than a few minutes” to another employee it would be perceived as not relating to work or “promoting the union.”
The warehouse supervisor also told a truck driver for the store and a warehouse employee that one of the driver’s friend’s would be the first to be laid off, employees wouldn’t be able to use the truck for personal use anymore, there could be a reduction to part-time hours and unsold deli sandwiches would be thrown out rather than given to the employee lunch room if the union was certified. He also said the owner could shut down the warehouse and use a different supplier for his stores. The supervisor said he mentioned those things but denied it was in relation to the union.
Word of these conversations spread among the store’s employees and many became concerned about being laid off or reduced to part time. The union organizer testified there was increasing support for the union among the store’s employees as the campaign picked up steam in late July and early August, particularly around the time of the meeting at Seminuk’s home. However, he said there was “a severe drop in support” later in August and September when the warehouse manager returned from vacation and began speaking to Seminuk and other employees. He said employees cancelled appointments with him and some who had said to call back later now refused to talk to him. He decided to file the certification application on Sept. 6 as he had enough signed union cards to process the application.
On Sept. 7, 2006, the owner distributed a pamphlet to employees saying he was happy to run the business but certifying the union would have an effect on him. The owner also said in the pamphlet “I believe a union can create an ‘us versus them’ relationship between the company and its employees. I believe that is bad for business. I believe that I have proven over the past 30 years that I am a fair employer and that you don’t need a union!”
On Sept. 14, 2006, the store sent out another pamplet which reiterated the owner’s position that a union wasn’t necessary and they would be better off dealing directly with each other rather than through a union, saying “it’s up to you.”
The union claimed the conduct of Better Buy Market’s owner, Larry Hyette, his warehouse supervisor and his store manager were anti-union and unlawful. It argued their conversations with employees “turned the certification campaign into a vote on whether the employees wished to keep their jobs.”
The store argued the employees had issues with the campaign such as misleading them into signing cards and giving out home phone numbers. It also said the pamphlets should have quelled any fears of layoffs or reductions of hours and since the union had enough cards to file the certification, there couldn’t have been much negative effect on its campaign. It also claimed the warehouse supervisor was an employee in the proposed bargaining unit and not management so his actions didn’t constitute unfair labour practice.
The board found the warehouse supervisor had the authority to hire, discipline and discharge, which made him a manager under the Labour Relations Code and was acting on behalf of the employer when he spoke with employees about the union. Because of his status and “closeness to Hyette” if it was his opinion there might be a shutdown would lead employees to believe it was a real concern. He discussed employees losing privileges they had previously enjoyed and even if he didn’t mean them to be associated with the union drive as he claimed, it should have been apparent the employees would take it that way.
The board found all the union’s witnesses were consistent in describing the warehouse manager as claiming there would be consequences of union certification, but the warehouse supervisor’s was inconsistent with other management witnesses and thus held less weight.
“(The supervisor) had drawn a clear link between the employees’ decision to unionize, and the employer shutting down the business as a result,” the board said. “The statements are words of warning to the employees: if you choose to unionize, there will be lay offs, reductions to part time hours or closure of the business.”
The board found the actions and statements of the owner, supervisor and manager of Better Buy Market would intimidate and coerce a “reasonable employee” that the possibility of shutting down the store, laying off employees or reducing hours would happen if the union was certified. This could influence the employee in voting for the union. It also found the significant drop in support was unlikely to be the result of any of the union’s campaign tactics and most likely attributable to the store’s conduct.
The board found Better Buy Markets used intimidation “to compel employees from becoming members of a trade union” and “interfered in the employees’ selection of a trade union,” both violations of the code. Because these tactics affected the support for the union, and “it is unlikely that employees can disabuse their minds of threats to their job security linked to union representation, the board granted a remedial certification rather than another vote.
For more information see:
•Better Buy Market Ltd. v. U.F.C.W., Local 1518, 2007 CarswellBC 1721 (B.C. Lab. Rel. Bd.).
Better Buy Market interfered in employees’ selection of a union in British Columbia
When a British Columbia grocery store learned a union was attempting to organize its employees, it began a series of actions designed to intimidate and coerce the employees into rejecting the union, according to the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.
Better Buy Market, of Prince George, B.C., reacted to news its employees were considering unionization in July and August 2006 by having managers and supervisors track down an employee thought to be the “ringleader” as well as other vulnerable employees and discussed possible consequences of unionization including layoffs, reduced hours and the removal of some privileges enjoyed by employees. The owner also sent out two pamphlets urging employees to reject the union and if they went through with it there would be an effect on the business.
Word spread of these possible consquences and many employees became fearful for their jobs. The union noticed a considerable drop-off in support.
The board ruled Better Buy’s actions constituted intimidation and its attempts to coerce its employees into rejecting the union were interfering with the process. Both were violations of the Labour Relations Code and the board allowed certification of the union to proceed without a further vote.
Better Buy Market’s message to employees
The following is taken from the pamphlet Better Buy Market distributed to employees on Sept. 7, 2006 after learning employees were considering unionization:
I have heard that the union is telling some of you that you should not worry about how a certification will affect me because I am going to sell the business to the Overwaitea Food Group anyways. This is not true. I was approached casually some time ago and asked whether I would be interested in selling the business, but I said no. I am happy running this business and intend to keep running this business in the future. I do not want you to think that becoming certified will have no effect on me personally, or on the business.
In the end, it is up to you and your co-workers whether you want to join a union or not. While I will respect whatever choice you make, I want you to know that it is my preference to deal with you directly, rather than through a Union. I believe a union can create an “us versus them” relationship between the Company and its employees. I believe that is bad for business. I believe that I have proven over the past 30 years that I am a fair employer and that you don’t need a union!
In July 2006, the United Food and Commercial Workers began a campaign to organize the employees of Better Buy Market, a warehouse style grocery store. In August 2006, Larry Hyette, the owner of the store, learned from an employee of the union drive. He responded by calling a meeting with managers, office and sales staff and some workers. At the meeting, Hyette said he wasn’t happy about a union coming in and instructed those at the meeting to get more information and to be careful.
After the meeting, the warehouse supervisor approached an employee, Teresa Seminuk, and told her he knew there had been a union meeting at her house and there had been an insider there. Seminuk claimed later the supervisor had said “if the union came in, the employees would be laid off or have to work part time.”
Soon after, the store manager called Seminuk into his office and told her other employees had complained they had been misled into signing union cards. He also said she was the “ringleader of the union” and said Hyette, the owner, “was pissed and the pressure would be on.” The manager denied saying those words but did admit the comments about pressure and that Hyette wasn’t happy.
The day after talking to the manager, Seminuk was relayed a message from the warehouse supervisor that “if she was caught talking to any staff member, it would be assumed she was talking about the union and she could be written up.”
She discussed this with the manager, who told her if she was seen talking for “more than a few minutes” to another employee it would be perceived as not relating to work or “promoting the union.”
The warehouse supervisor also told a truck driver for the store and a warehouse employee that one of the driver’s friend’s would be the first to be laid off, employees wouldn’t be able to use the truck for personal use anymore, there could be a reduction to part-time hours and unsold deli sandwiches would be thrown out rather than given to the employee lunch room if the union was certified. He also said the owner could shut down the warehouse and use a different supplier for his stores. The supervisor said he mentioned those things but denied it was in relation to the union.
Word of these conversations spread among the store’s employees and many became concerned about being laid off or reduced to part time. The union organizer testified there was increasing support for the union among the store’s employees as the campaign picked up steam in late July and early August, particularly around the time of the meeting at Seminuk’s home. However, he said there was “a severe drop in support” later in August and September when the warehouse manager returned from vacation and began speaking to Seminuk and other employees. He said employees cancelled appointments with him and some who had said to call back later now refused to talk to him. He decided to file the certification application on Sept. 6 as he had enough signed union cards to process the application.
On Sept. 7, 2006, the owner distributed a pamphlet to employees saying he was happy to run the business but certifying the union would have an effect on him. The owner also said in the pamphlet “I believe a union can create an ‘us versus them’ relationship between the company and its employees. I believe that is bad for business. I believe that I have proven over the past 30 years that I am a fair employer and that you don’t need a union!”
On Sept. 14, 2006, the store sent out another pamplet which reiterated the owner’s position that a union wasn’t necessary and they would be better off dealing directly with each other rather than through a union, saying “it’s up to you.”
The union claimed the conduct of Better Buy Market’s owner, Larry Hyette, his warehouse supervisor and his store manager were anti-union and unlawful. It argued their conversations with employees “turned the certification campaign into a vote on whether the employees wished to keep their jobs.”
The store argued the employees had issues with the campaign such as misleading them into signing cards and giving out home phone numbers. It also said the pamphlets should have quelled any fears of layoffs or reductions of hours and since the union had enough cards to file the certification, there couldn’t have been much negative effect on its campaign. It also claimed the warehouse supervisor was an employee in the proposed bargaining unit and not management so his actions didn’t constitute unfair labour practice.
The board found the warehouse supervisor had the authority to hire, discipline and discharge, which made him a manager under the Labour Relations Code and was acting on behalf of the employer when he spoke with employees about the union. Because of his status and “closeness to Hyette” if it was his opinion there might be a shutdown would lead employees to believe it was a real concern. He discussed employees losing privileges they had previously enjoyed and even if he didn’t mean them to be associated with the union drive as he claimed, it should have been apparent the employees would take it that way.
The board found all the union’s witnesses were consistent in describing the warehouse manager as claiming there would be consequences of union certification, but the warehouse supervisor’s was inconsistent with other management witnesses and thus held less weight.
“(The supervisor) had drawn a clear link between the employees’ decision to unionize, and the employer shutting down the business as a result,” the board said. “The statements are words of warning to the employees: if you choose to unionize, there will be lay offs, reductions to part time hours or closure of the business.”
The board found the actions and statements of the owner, supervisor and manager of Better Buy Market would intimidate and coerce a “reasonable employee” that the possibility of shutting down the store, laying off employees or reducing hours would happen if the union was certified. This could influence the employee in voting for the union. It also found the significant drop in support was unlikely to be the result of any of the union’s campaign tactics and most likely attributable to the store’s conduct.
The board found Better Buy Markets used intimidation “to compel employees from becoming members of a trade union” and “interfered in the employees’ selection of a trade union,” both violations of the code. Because these tactics affected the support for the union, and “it is unlikely that employees can disabuse their minds of threats to their job security linked to union representation, the board granted a remedial certification rather than another vote.
For more information see:
•Better Buy Market Ltd. v. U.F.C.W., Local 1518, 2007 CarswellBC 1721 (B.C. Lab. Rel. Bd.).
Better Buy Market interfered in employees’ selection of a union in British Columbia
When a British Columbia grocery store learned a union was attempting to organize its employees, it began a series of actions designed to intimidate and coerce the employees into rejecting the union, according to the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.
Better Buy Market, of Prince George, B.C., reacted to news its employees were considering unionization in July and August 2006 by having managers and supervisors track down an employee thought to be the “ringleader” as well as other vulnerable employees and discussed possible consequences of unionization including layoffs, reduced hours and the removal of some privileges enjoyed by employees. The owner also sent out two pamphlets urging employees to reject the union and if they went through with it there would be an effect on the business.
Word spread of these possible consquences and many employees became fearful for their jobs. The union noticed a considerable drop-off in support.
The board ruled Better Buy’s actions constituted intimidation and its attempts to coerce its employees into rejecting the union were interfering with the process. Both were violations of the Labour Relations Code and the board allowed certification of the union to proceed without a further vote.
Better Buy Market’s message to employees
The following is taken from the pamphlet Better Buy Market distributed to employees on Sept. 7, 2006 after learning employees were considering unionization:
I have heard that the union is telling some of you that you should not worry about how a certification will affect me because I am going to sell the business to the Overwaitea Food Group anyways. This is not true. I was approached casually some time ago and asked whether I would be interested in selling the business, but I said no. I am happy running this business and intend to keep running this business in the future. I do not want you to think that becoming certified will have no effect on me personally, or on the business.
In the end, it is up to you and your co-workers whether you want to join a union or not. While I will respect whatever choice you make, I want you to know that it is my preference to deal with you directly, rather than through a Union. I believe a union can create an “us versus them” relationship between the Company and its employees. I believe that is bad for business. I believe that I have proven over the past 30 years that I am a fair employer and that you don’t need a union!
