FORM 16 The Trade Union Act

COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE

BEFORE THE LABOUR BOARD 1. (a) Name of Complainant: Service Employees International Union Local 2,

Brewery, General & Professional Workers’ Union

(b) Address of Complainant: Service Employees International

Union Local 2, Brewery, General, and Professional Workers’ Union

2600 Skymark Avenue, Building 2, Suite 200 Mississauga, ON L4W 5B2 Tel: (905) 602-7477 Fax: (905) 602-7476 Halifax Office: 163 Wyse Road Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3A 1M5 Tel: (902) 455-1095 Fax: (902) 455-1855 2. (a) Name of Respondent: JustUS! Coffee Roasters Co-Op

(b) Address of Respondent: 5896 Spring Garden Road, Halifax, NS B3H 0A6 Tel: (902) 423-0856 Corporate Head Office: 11865 Highway #1, R.R. #3 Wolfville, NS, B4P 2R3 Tel: (902) 542-7474 Fax: (902) 542-4436

3. (a) Names of Aggrieved Persons:

i) Shay XXXXXXX ii) Elijah XXXXXXX

(b) Addresses and Telephone Numbers of Aggrieved Persons:

XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

4. (a) Nature of Complaint: Please see attached Schedule “A”.

(b) Contrary to Section 53 Subsection(s) (1)(a), 3(a)(i), 3(b), 3(e) of the Trade Union Act of Nova Scotia.

5. The Complainant has requested the Respondent to take the following action:

N/A 6. (a) The following steps have been taken on behalf of the person(s) aggrieved

for the adjustment or settlement of the matters giving rise to the complaint: The filing of the present complaint. (b) The degree of settlement or adjustment is as follows: None.

7. Date when the complainant learned of the action or circumstances given rise to

the complaint: The complainant first became aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint on or around March 27, 2013.

8. A copy of any collective agreement binding upon the parties is enclosed.

N/A 9. The Complainant requests the Labour Relations Board to:

Please see attached Schedule “B”.

I / We James Cameron Nelson, President and Tom Galivan, Secretary-Treasurer, declare that the statements made and information given herein are true in substance and in fact and we make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath, and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act. Declared by the said

and

before me at The City of Mississauga in the Province of Ontario this 27th day of March, 2013

Bruce Price Legal Counsel (a member in good standing of the Law Society of Upper Canada) Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General and Professional Workers’ Union A commissioner for taking affidavits, etc. pursuant to s. 67(1) of the Evidence Act, R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 154. A commissioner of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. (To be declared before a Commissioner for taking affidavits or any other person authorized by law to administer an oath.)* Strike out if not applicable

Schedule “A”

Nature of the Complaint / Statement of Material Facts

The Complainant, Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General and

Professional Workers’ Union (“SEIU Local 2” or “the Union”), relies on the following material

facts in support of the present complaint:

The Parties

1) SEIU Local 2 is a trade union within the meaning of that term in the Trade Union Act (“the

Act”).

2) The Respondent, JustUS! Coffee Roasters Co-op (“JustUS” or “the Employer”), is a

company engaged in the operation of coffee shops at several locations in Nova Scotia,

including a location on Spring Garden Road in downtown Halifax.

Summary

3) The present unfair labour practice complaint concerns violations of the Act committed by the

Respondent, which occurred when it summarily dismissed two employees, known to be

supporters of SEIU Local 2, at its location at 5896 Spring Garden Road, in the midst of an

organizing drive.

Background

4) SEIU Local 2 commenced an organizing drive with respect to employees of JustUS working

at 5896 Spring Garden Road (“Spring Garden location”) in Halifax at the end of December

2012.

5) Throughout the course of January and February 2013, the Union’s organizer, Mr. Jason

Edwards, held a series of meetings and had numerous discussions with employees at the

Spring Garden location. During that period of time, a number of employees signed

membership cards with SEIU Local 2.

6) On March 10, 2013, as part of the continuing organizing drive, the vast majority of staff at

the Spring Garden location, along with Mr. Edwards, met with a representative of the

Canadian Labour Congress, to discuss unionization and the benefits of unionization, among

other things.

7) The following day, Ms. Alison XXXXX, the Team Lead (Store Manager) at the Spring

Garden location, along with Ms. Holly XXXXX, a Team Lead at another location, spoke

with most, if not all, employees at that location, including two employees that were the

Union’s key inside organizers, who would be terminated from employment shortly thereafter.

Ms. XXXXX explicitly asked employees if they were discussing unionization. Ms. XXXXX

also suggested that she had received a phone call “from a concerned parent” about the

Union’s organizing drive.

8) The Union’s organizing drive had been discussed openly among the workforce at the Spring

Garden location. Two employees, Shay XXXXX and Elijah XXXXX, were known by the

vast majority of staff to have been key inside organizers for the Union. In addition, both of

these individuals has signed union cards in front of other workers and openly discussed

unionization with SEIU Local 2 with other staff. The Respondent was well aware that these

individuals were internal leaders in the Union’s organizing drive.

9) On March 27, 2013, both Shay XXXXX and Elijah XXXXX were terminated from their

employment. At the time of the terminations, both individuals had been employed with the

Respondent for over a year, with Shay XXXXX being employed for more than 18 months.

Despite this, the Employer’s reasons for terminating Shay XXXXX were indicated as being

“not a right fit for the company” and “not committed to the co-op.” As for Elijah XXXXX,

the Employer gave multiple and completely improper reasons for the termination, such as

“physicality”, “tendonitis”, “future plans”, and “personal stress”. It was clear that the

Employer had no rational or defensible basis for the terminations and therefore provided the

reasons set out above.

10) The work location at issue is a small operation, employing 12 non-managerial employees

(until the recent terminations). In light of this fact, the effect of the Employer’s actions is

magnified and creates a clear chill among the workforce, in terms of any continued viable

organizing efforts. The Employer’s actions were calculated and imposed specifically to send

a message to employees that they would be putting their employment in jeopardy if they

chose to support SEIU Local 2.

Submissions

11) In light of the foregoing, SEIU Local 2 submits that it is clear that the Respondent’s actions,

in terminating the Union’s two key internal organizers, were aimed at creating a chilling

effect that would, in effect, bring an end to the Union’s organizing drive. This action has

resulted in multiple violations of the Act, as set out on the attached Form 16.

12) As a result, the remedies requested in Schedule “B” are necessary in order to redress the

harm occasioned by the Respondent’s actions.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Schedule “B”

The Complainant, Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General &

Professional Workers’ Union Local 2 (“SEIU Local 2”), respectfully requests the following

remedies:

1) A declaration that the Respondent, JustUS! Coffee Roasters Co-op (“JustUS”), has violated

ss. 53(1)(a), and/or 3(a)(i), and/or 3(b), and/or 3(e) of the Trade Union Act (“the Act”).

2) An Order that JustUs cease and desist from violating the Act.

3) An Order that JustUs reinstate Shay XXXXX and Elijah XXXXX to their employment at

JustUS’ Spring Garden location, with no loss of service, along with an Order that for

compensation for all losses incurred as a result of the Respondent’s actions.

4) An Order that SEIU Local 2 be provided with an opportunity to meet with all non-managerial

employees for a period of thirty minutes on a date of its choosing, during regular working

hours, in a location that is near to, or within, the Respondent’s location.

5) An Order that the final decision in this matter be posted in a conspicuous location at the

workplace and remain posted for a period of thirty (30) days.

6) An Order that JustUS be required to post a notice in a conspicuous location at the workplace,

where it will come to the attention of all employees, signed by a senior official of JustUS,

acknowledging that it violated the Act, describing the manner in which it violated the Act,

and further advising that all employees have the right to freely choose their bargaining agent,

without restraint or interference.

7) Such other relief as the Complainant may request and the Board deems just.