Role of union stewards supported by Labour Board

Stewards must be able to operate in the workplace without interference or intimidation for the union to be effective. A recent decision by the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) reinforces the rights needed by stewards to work on behalf of their members.

Stewards–and all union representatives–are protected against employer intimidation and interference under the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA). Without these protections, the union could not speak up for the interests of its members in the workplace. Enforcing these rights is critical, and the recent decision in the Perka case provides a strong example for all unions covered by the PSLRA.

Protection provided by legislation

The PSLRA provides detailed protections for union representatives and members that prevent the employer from:

• Interfering with how a union runs its own affairs;
• Interfering with the representation that the union provides to its members;
• Imposing discipline or discriminating against anyone because of his or her lawful activities in the union.

The Unfair Labour Practices section of the PSLRA should be consulted for a full view of the protections provided, but the essential point is that the employer cannot prevent union representatives from carrying out their legitimate duties. In the Perka case, the union was able to prove the employer had violated the protections it was required to respect.

The Perka case: facts

Marc Perka and Edward Rinn were official representatives of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association (CFPA) who worked as Civil Aviation Inspectors with Transport Canada. On August 19, 2005 they met in their capacity as union representatives with management regarding the recent hiring of a new staff member, Stéphane Demers. Perka and Rinn maintained that Demers did not meet the minimum requirements of the position and at the close of the meeting they told management that the union would ask the Public Service Commission to investigate.

After the meeting, the management representative, Dean Zimmer, phoned his superior, Roger Beebe, to complain about the conduct of Perka and Rinn during their discussions. Zimmer followed up his phone call with an email in which he accused Perka and Rinn of harassment.

As a result of the formal harassment complaint, Beebe conducted an investigation into Perka and Rinn, advising them beforehand that they could have a union representative present. Rinn described Beebe’s investigation as combative and stated that he conducted their meeting as if it were a trial. The investigation report found no basis for formal discipline but nonetheless management put a copy of the report on the personnel files of Perka and Rinn.

Beebe also met with Stéphane Demers whose qualifications were the subject of the August 19 discussions with the union. According to Beebe, this was to assure Demers that his job was not in jeopardy, but in the cross-examination of Dean Zimmer, who had also attended the meeting, it was revealed that Demers had been instructed by Beebe not to speak with his union representatives, Perka and Rinn, regarding the matter.

In his testimony, Stéphane Demers confirmed that Beebe had told him it would be best if he did not discuss the entire matter with Perka and Rinn. Demers was also clear that he had wanted to discuss the issue with his union representatives and was frustrated with Beebe’s instructions.

The decision

The first issue to be decided was whether the employer had interfered with the union’s right to represent its members. The PSLRA states:

186. (1) Neither the employer nor a person who occupies a managerial or confidential position, whether or not the person is acting on behalf of the employer, shall

(a) participate in or interfere with the formation or administration of an employee organization or the representation of employees by an employee organization;

In its decision, the PSLRB found that:

• at the August 19 meeting, Perka and Rinn were acting as union representatives and that the discussion of the staffing issue related to Stéphane Demers was a lawful union activity;
• management’s decision to place the investigation report by Beebe on the personnel files of Perka and Rinn amounted to disciplinary action (written reprimand);
• as a result of this discipline, the employer had interfered with the right of Perka and Rinn to represent their members, breaching paragraph 186(1)(a) of the PSLRA.

The second issue to be decided was whether management interfered with the right of Stéphane Demers to speak with his union representatives, Marc Perka and Edward Rinn, about the issues related to his hiring. In section 186(2), the PSLRA prohibits the employer from:

• intimidating or disciplining any person, because the person participates in the administration of an employee organization;
• seeking to restrain an employee from exercising any right under Part 1 or Part 2 of the PSLRA.

The PSLRB again ruled in favour of Perka and Rinn. In reviewing the evidence, the Board member hearing the case found that manager Beebe had clearly instructed Stéphane Demers not to the discuss the staffing issue with his union representatives. In doing so, the employer had violated the prohibition against imposing “…a condition that seeks to restrain an employee from exercising any right under Part 1 or Part 2 of the PSLRA.”

As a result, the PSLRB ordered the removal of the investigation report that management had placed on the personnel files of Perka and Rinn and issued a formal declaration that the employer had violated section 186 of the PSLRA.

Conclusion

This decision is important for two reasons. First, it illustrates the protections that allow stewards and union officers to work on behalf of their members. Without these protections, many could be pressured into silence.

Second, it demonstrates the value of challenging the employer when it violates the rights provided by law. If rights are not enforced, they effectively cease to exist.

Members with questions related to the rights of union representatives are invited to speak with the CEIU staff responsible for their local.