The Ontario Labour Relations Board has denied a union’s request to reinstate two terminated workers at an Alamos Gold mine on an interim basis, finding insufficient evidence that their dismissals were linked to a union organizing campaign.
The decision arose from an application by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, seeking interim reinstatement of two maintenance employees while an unfair labour practice complaint proceeds. The Board declined to grant the request, concluding that the circumstances did not support interim relief under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The case centres on the dismissal of two workers at the Island Gold Mine in northern Ontario, both of whom the union alleged were terminated in retaliation for supporting unionization efforts.
Interim reinstatement not warranted
The Board said that interim orders are assessed on a preliminary basis and do not involve final findings of fact or credibility. It described the task as a “high-level assessment” of whether granting interim relief makes labour relations sense in the circumstances.
In declining to reinstate the workers, the Board pointed to three main considerations: the lack of a clear link between the dismissals and union activity, the plausibility of the employer’s explanation, and insufficient evidence of harm to the organizing campaign.
The Board found it was “not at this stage convinced” that employees would associate the dismissals with union activity, noting limited evidence that the two workers were central figures in the organizing effort.
While the union argued the workers were vocal supporters, the Board said there was little to show they had influenced others to join or that their actions would have significantly shaped employee perceptions.
Employer’s workplace review seen as plausible
Alamos Gold said the dismissals were part of a broader effort to address workplace issues in the maintenance department, including morale, communication and trust concerns.
The Board accepted that this explanation appeared plausible at this stage, noting that concerns about the department predated the union campaign and that an external workplace review had been conducted.
It also highlighted that three management employees were dismissed around the same time, suggesting the employer’s actions were not limited to union supporters.
The Board stated that this context “suggests that Alamos’ concerns with diminished morale, lack of trust, and ineffective communication were sincere,” though it noted the issue will be examined fully at a later hearing.
Limited evidence of harm to organizing campaign
The union argued that the dismissals had a chilling effect on organizing efforts and would cause irreparable harm if the workers were not reinstated.
The Board acknowledged some evidence of a slowdown but found it lacked sufficient detail to conclude the impact was significant. It noted the absence of data on union support levels or declarations from other employees.
Without that evidence, the Board declined to infer that the dismissals caused substantial harm to the campaign.
At the same time, it found that reinstating the workers could interfere with the employer’s efforts to address workplace issues identified in the review, including obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to address harassment and maintain a safe workplace.
‘Without cause’ designation not determinative
The union also pointed to the employer’s characterization of the terminations as “without cause” as evidence supporting its claim of anti-union motive.
The Board rejected that argument at this stage, noting that employers commonly dismiss employees without cause in non-union settings, even where misconduct is alleged, due to the high legal threshold for just cause.
It stated it was “not prepared to read into” the use of the term for the purposes of the interim application.
Next steps in underlying complaint
The Board’s decision does not determine whether an unfair labour practice occurred. That issue will be addressed in a full hearing, where evidence will be tested and findings made.
If the Board ultimately finds the dismissals were linked to union activity, it may order remedies including reinstatement and compensation.
In the meantime, the Board directed the employer to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Counsel for Plaintiff: Daniel Daigle
Counsel for Defendant: Craig Lawrence
Decision Maker: Jordan Kirkness, Vice-Chair.
For more information, see International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v Alamos Gold Inc., 2026 CanLII 35780 (ON LRB).
