Article content continued

But the board also ordered the bank to send a letter that the board drafted and which couldn’t be altered, under the signature of the CEO, to all employees, and to pay the union a total of $144,000 over three years for its sins.

The court set aside both these remedies.

The proposed letter would have said the board had found the branch closure “was aimed … at denying the employees … the fundamental right to bargain collectively” and that “it is paramount that for the benefit of all management and staff I clarify, in my capacity as chairman and Chief Executive Officer” that “all management personnel of this bank, regardless of their hierarchical level, have the responsibility of respecting the choice of those employees who opt for free collective bargaining.

“We intend to deposit the sum of $144,000 in a fund over the next three years as a concrete manifestation of our commitment to this principle…”

The bank argued that the letter was humiliating and unreasonable. The Court agreed.

This type of penalty is totalitarian and as such alien to the tradition of free nations like Canada

It was then that the late Justice Jean Beetz, writing in agreement with his colleagues, said this:

“…The letter…does not mention that, like the creation of the fund, it was imposed by the board, and the person signing it cannot disclose this coercion without infringing the order…The creation of the fund and the letter are thus open to the interpretation that they result from an initiative taken by the National Bank of Canada, and reflect the views and sentiments of the bank and its president…