Canadian Labour Reporter

company's joint health and safety committee (JHSC). Rocktenn's operated a shift ro- tation that involved four shifts, which were divided into two pairs — one pair had the A and B shifts and the other had the C and D shifts. Each shift rotated between day and night with the other in its pair. Following a JHSC meeting in the fall of 2014, the plant super- intendent questioned why the three union members on the JHSC were all from the C shift. He sug- gested they should be spread out more among the shifts, so most of the shifts could have a committee member present. At the next JHSC meeting in November 2014, the company raised the issue again and the union representatives didn't ob- ject to spreading themselves out among the shifts. Rocktenn was already plan- ning to implement a shift change in early 2015 where certain em- ployees would be switched from eight-hour to 12-hour shifts, so it went ahead with the plan and each of the three JHSC union represen- tatives was placed on a different shift. The company implemented this plan under a collective agree- ment provision that stated it had the right to delete, change or amend shift schedules, start times and hours of work, with 30 days' working notice. The provision also stated Rock- tenn agreed to only do so for legiti- mate business needs and not for discriminatory or punitive rea- sons. Rocktenn gave formal notice of the change on Nov. 26, 2014, indi- cating it would be effective on Dec. 29. And Krykunenko was moved from the C shift to the A shift. Rocktenn closed for several days over Christmas, and the last day of work for the C shift was Dec. 23. Had Krykunenko remained on the C shift, his first day back after the Christmas break would have been Jan. 5, 2015. However, because he switched to the other shift pairing, he had to return to work on Dec. 29 and 30. Rocktenn paid him statutory holi- day/floater pay for the two extra shifts. About 18 employees were af- fected by the shift change, but Krykunenko was the only one who moved to a different pairing — all the others moved between the A and B shifts or the C and D shifts, including the other two union JHSC representatives. Krykunenko challenged his shift reassignment, complaining that he was moved to a different shift pairing — resulting in a loss of Christmas break time — because Rocktenn was punishing him for his union activity. He noted that in April 2014, he complained of ventilation prob- lems, heat stress and chemical exposure, both in a JHSC meeting and emails to management later in the year. He also tried to convince Unifor to pursue grievances regarding public holiday pay and bonuses in October 2014, and challenged Rocktenn's attendance policies in an October email. The Ontario Labour Rela- tions Board found that Rocktenn had plans to implement the shift change before all of Krykunenko's complaints, and it had been dis- cussed at JHSC meetings that the union JHSC members should be moved to other shifts so they were spread out among the shifts. Krykunenko's switch came along with several other employ- ees and the board was satisfied Rocktenn had legitimate business reasons to implement it. The board noted that Unifor and its representatives offered no resistance to the shift change and Rocktenn complied with the col- lective agreement by providing the required advance notice. In addition, Krykunenko made no objection to the changes until he realized he would lose two off- days during the Christmas break. Rocktenn argued that over time, Krykunenko would regain the lost off-days on the new A shift sched- ule. Krykunenko argued that Rock- tenn wasn't strictly required to evenly distribute the union JHSC members and there would still be at least one shift without a mem- ber, so it didn't need to move him to another shift pairing. However, the board found this didn't matter and Rocktenn had a legitimate interest in fixing the situation of uneven distribution of union JHSC members as much as it could. The board found Krykunenko's union activity was nothing out of the ordinary and there was no reason Rocktenn would use it as a basis for punitive measures or a reprisal. In addition, Krykunenko's attempts to persuade Unifor to pursue the holiday pay and bonus pay grievances were private union business, of which Rocktenn would have no awareness. "We are also satisfied that the employer used neutral factors in determining how to re-allocate the union members of the JHSC — namely by considering skill and ability as well as seniority," said the board. "We are not convinced that the employer in any way targeted Mr. Krykunenko as claimed." The board agreed that Krykunenko felt "aggrieved" by how he was affected by the shift change, but Rocktenn didn't do it to punish him for his union activi- ties and the company properly ex- ercised its rights under the collec- tive agreement. For more information see: • Krykunenko v. Rocktenn Co. of Canada Inc., 2016 CarswellOnt 7899 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.). 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER NEWS < Shift pg. 1 Company planned shift changes before worker complaints Photo: alterfalter (Shutterstock) Krykunenko's union activity was not unusual and did not give Rocktenn a basis for punitive measures, said the board. Rocktenn had a legitimate interest in fixing the situation of uneven distribution of union JHSC members.

• Cover