Fired employee appointed union VP, but was banned from workplace
An Ontario company violated its collective agreement when it banned a fired employee who was a union executive from its property, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has ruled.
Patrick Veinot worked for Vale Inco, a Toronto-based nickel mining and metals company. He had a good employment record, with no instances of discipline from the time of his hiring in 2001 until Vale employees went on strike on July 13, 2009.
Veinot was also a union activist who served as a chief steward, sat on the grievance committee and was vice-president of his local for a time. He also made an unsuccessful bid for his local’s presidency before the strike.
Tensions boiled over during long strike
The strike was long, and several employees decided to cross the picket lines and resume working. This added to the acrimony and on Jan. 19, 2010, Veinot was involved in an incident where an employee who crossed the lines was assaulted. One striking worker was charged with assault and Veinot and another employee were charged with criminal harassment. Vale investigated and, although Veinot refused to give his account of the incident, Vale determined Veinot had verbally assaulted the victim and encouraged the other employee who carried out the physical assault. Vale terminated Veinot’s employment on Jan. 22, along with that of the other employees involved. They were also banned from Vale’s property.
The strike finally ended on July 8, 2010, and the union local president retired. The vice-president took over and the union’s executive board appointed Veinot vice-president on Aug. 2. However, Vale refused to lift the ban from its property and refused to recognize his union role, because the collective agreement required him to be an employee to be on the union executive. On Jan. 31, 2011, Veinot was found not guilty of criminal harassment but Vale stood behind its findings and felt his presence would pose a risk to the physical and mental well-being of its employees, particularly those who had crossed the picket line.
Though Veinot wasn’t allowed on Vale’s property, the company contacted him by phone to deal with ongoing grievances. There were several meetings between the company and union representatives on Vale property between August and November 2010 from which Veinot was excluded, though the union never asked to use Vale’s teleconferencing or videoconferencing facilities. The company also noted Veinot was not a member of the union executive when he was dismissed and when he was appointed vice-president, he wasn’t even a member anymore.
The union filed a grievance, complaining that Vale was interfering with union activity by refusing to allow its vice-president on its property for meetings. It also argued there were no justifiable reasons for banning Veinot, since he was acquitted on the charges and had no history of violent activity during his employment. With regard to the safety of employees who crossed picket lines, there was no reason to differentiate Veinot from any other union members who remained on strike, said the union.
No requirement for union VP to be employee
The board found that the collective agreement didn’t specifically require that the vice-president of the union local be an employee. Though the collective agreement stipulated the grievance committee must consist of employees, a separate letter of understanding named the vice-president as part of the joint grievance committee — a separate committee — without listing any obligation that he be an employee. This situation had never come up before, so it was unlikely both sides contemplated the possibility in the collective agreement, said the board.
The board also found Vale dealt with Veinot over the phone to handle other grievances, so the company was prepared to deal with him, though not on its property. It pointed out that the union had grieved the termination of all striking employees, including Veinot, with the possibility they would be reinstated. With this possibility in mind and with Veinot having been so active in union affairs, it wasn’t surprising he was appointed vice-president, said the board.
The board determined that Vale’s refusal to allow Veinot on its property negatively impacted the union president and other representatives by depriving them of Veinot’s assistance in the meetings on its property. It also made it difficult for union members to access their vice-president while at work. This was contrary to how previous union vice-presidents were treated and was a “cold and hard” message that caused “substantial interference in both the administration of the union and its representation of employees.” Even if Vale was concerned for employee safety, this shouldn’t affect Veinot’s ability to attend the meetings, said the board.
