A British Columbia employer has been granted partial relief in its attempt to stay a labour board decision that ordered the reinstatement of three employees and other remedial actions following a finding of unfair labour practices.
Gordon Food Service won’t be required to post a copy of the bottom-line decision, which states that it committed breaches of the Labour Relations Code. That’s because, without reasons or context, the decision could leave employees “to their own imaginations as to why the Board found as it did.”
The Board agreed that the requirement to post a copy of the bottom-line decision within seven calendar days would cause irremediable prejudice if the Employer’s application for reconsideration were ultimately successful.
As a result, the Board found that the potential harm of publishing the decision in its current form could not be undone and granted a stay of that order until the full reasons are issued.
The case stems from a complaint filed by the Teamsters Local Union No. 31, which alleged that Gordon Food Service violated several sections of the Code when it terminated the employment of certain workers. The B.C. Labour Relations Board (LRB) issued a “bottom-line decision” on Aug. 2, 2024, finding that the Employer had indeed breached the Code and ordering immediate remedies, including the reinstatement of the terminated employees, compensation for lost wages, and the posting of the decision at all of the Employer’s worksites.
Employer sought full reasons behind ruling
The Employer subsequently applied to the LRB to stay the decision until the full reasons behind the ruling were provided, arguing that compliance with the orders would cause irremediable prejudice to its operations and employees. The Employer’s central claim was that reinstating the terminated workers would disrupt the workplace by displacing other employees, potentially leading to further legal liabilities.
The Union, in contrast, argued that the Employer had not demonstrated that the reinstatement would result in irreparable harm, pointing to previous decisions where the Board had found that reinstating employees does not, in itself, constitute irremediable prejudice.
In its analysis, the LRB applied the established test for granting a stay of proceedings as set out in the White Spot decision. This test requires the applicant to show both a serious case for reconsideration and that its ability to advance the reconsideration application would be irremediably prejudiced if the stay were not granted.
Given that the decision was a bottom-line ruling without accompanying reasons, both parties agreed that the first part of the test should be assumed met. Therefore, the LRB’s focus was on whether the Employer would suffer irremediable prejudice in the absence of a stay.
Most prejudice claims rejected
The LRB rejected most of the Employer’s claims of prejudice. On the issue of reinstating the terminated employees, the LRB cited its previous decisions, stating that “complying with an order for reinstatement will not, itself, amount to irremediable prejudice,” even if it results in the displacement of other workers. The Board emphasized that any resulting disruption in the workplace could be remedied through a reconsideration if necessary.
Similarly, the Board dismissed the Employer’s arguments regarding the cease-and-desist order, which directed the Employer to stop further breaches of the Labour Relations Code. The LRB noted that such orders are “a broad direction to a party not to breach the Code,” and found that any uncertainty resulting from the absence of reasons could be addressed through subsequent remedies if a breach occurred.
The Union was also successful in its argument regarding the order allowing it to meet with employees at the Employer’s worksites. The LRB referred to its decisions in the Red Chris cases, where it held that allowing a union access to employees for the purposes of organizing does not constitute irreparable harm. The Board concluded that any potential prejudice to the Employer from this order was outweighed by the prejudice the Union would suffer if it were denied the opportunity to engage with workers.
The order to post the decision has been stayed, but the orders to reinstate the employees, cease and desist from further breaches, and permit the Union to meet with employees remain in effect. The case continues to highlight the complexities involved in balancing employer and union rights under the Labour Relations Code.
For more information, see Gordon Food Service Ltd., 2024 BCLRB 103 (CanLII).
