Anti-union practices | A blame for Les Fermes Lufa in Saint-Laurent

Lufa Farms is slapped on the knuckles by the Administrative Labor Tribunal, which orders it to cease its interventions in a unionization campaign. The Montreal company – which nevertheless has the Solidarity Fund QFL among its investors – is criticized for having tried to discourage its employees from joining a union.

The provisional order issued on June 7 by administrative judge François Beaubien concerns the thirty or so employees of the urban greenhouse located in the Montreal borough of Saint-Laurent. It stems from a complaint from Local 501 of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union – which already represents the company’s Laval employees.

According to the document, the employer would have held two meetings with its employees, last Monday, during their working hours, in order to warn them about union actions. Communications Director Yourianne Plante, Human Resources Manager Alison Pearce and two other managers were on hand.

” [M^me Plante] said the first thing that would happen [en cas d’arrivée du syndicat] would be the deduction of union dues from wages,” the UFCW complaint points out.

Union allegations claim that Mr.^me Plante also allegedly raised several arguments to try to discourage the workers. For example, the arrival of a union would prevent the company from discussing working conditions directly with employees, Ms.^me Plant.

In the view of the UFCW, these are anti-union practices. By insinuating that unionization would mean a “strike” and loss of flexibility, the urban agriculture company deliberately tried to undermine the union’s efforts.

“We are active with campaigns in the other two greenhouses and the distribution center,” said Nil Ataogul, UFCW organizing coordinator, in a telephone interview. We want them to understand that there are consequences to what they do and avoid other similar encounters in other greenhouses, where we want to protect freedom of association. »

The union obtained a provisional injunction, pleading the urgency to act in order to put an end to the interventions of Lufa Farms. According to the company, the union campaign was “poorly orchestrated” and the events referred to in the UFCW complaint “occurred in the hubbub of the beginning”.

Obviously, the administrative judge saw things differently.

“The union has demonstrated that, in the absence of court intervention, the harm that the actions could cause it is likely to defeat the process of unionization, it is written in the seven-page decision. This is serious and irreparable harm. »

By email, the company specializing in urban agriculture stressed that it had “taken note” of the temporary order and intended to comply with it.

Until the union’s complaint is heard on its merits, Lufa Farms and its representatives must refrain from “discussing, directly or indirectly” the current organizing campaign. The order of the administrative judge must also be displayed “in plain view” on the company’s premises.