{"id":5033,"date":"2015-04-27T04:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-04-27T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/employer-communication-during-union-drives\/"},"modified":"2026-05-22T13:13:05","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T17:13:05","slug":"employer-communication-during-union-drives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/labour-and-employment\/employer-communication-during-union-drives\/","title":{"rendered":"Employer communication during union drives: The do’s and don\u2019ts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

There is not much more frightening for employers than the possibility of becoming unionized. Upon learning of a union drive in the workplace, an employer should develop a strategic response to ensure the best chance of defeating a union\u2019s organizing efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Communication to employees regarding a union is an important tool that can be used by employers to combat a union\u2019s organizing campaign. An employer is permitted to express its views about a union as long as the employer does not use \u201ccoercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence\u201d. The OLRB can order certification without a vote where the employer\u2019s communications to employees contravenes the Labour Relations Act <\/i>(the \u201cAct\u201d). <\/i>As such, a union organizing campaign is a period during which the employer\u2019s conduct and all communication will be scrutinized by the union and possibly the OLRB. Employers must develop an appropriate communication strategy that achieves the goal of reducing the likelihood of unionization while not violating the Act. <\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two cases provide some insight on the dos and don\u2019ts of employer communications. In CEP v Boehmer Box, <\/i>the employer circulated three memos to employees.1<\/a><\/sup> The memos made references to unemployment, the ability of the company to compete and the possible loss of customers. The employer also noted that facilities in which the CEP held bargaining rights had closed. The OLRB found that the employer had raised the possibility of job loss by connecting unionization with a loss of the company\u2019s competitiveness in violation of the Act. The Board ordered certification without a vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Service Employees International Union v PRP Senior Living Inc. o\/a Sunrise of Aurora, <\/i>the employer undertook significant steps in an attempt to prevent unionization.2<\/a><\/sup> Senior management and executives from the United States attended the workplace as soon as the union organizing efforts commenced. Senior management held a series of one-on-one meetings with employees to discuss the employees\u2019 views of the union and workplace issues. In addition, the union alleged the following: that videos, bulletins and letters were provided to employees which suggested that the union would lie or mislead; materials questioned the employees ongoing job security; and town hall meetings were held to discuss the union. The OLRB noted that certain acts by the employer in isolation would not have breached the Act.<\/i> However, the cumulative effect of the employer\u2019s actions constituted \u201cundue influence\u201d and as a result, certification was ordered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following are some practical tips for communicating with employees during a union drive:<\/p>\n\n\n\n