FORM 16 The Trade Union Act COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE BEFORE THE LABOUR BOARD 1.

(a) Name of Complainant: Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General & Professional Workers Union

(b) Address of Complainant:

Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General, and Professional Workers Union 2600 Skymark Avenue, Building 2, Suite 200 Mississauga, ON L4W 5B2 Tel: (905) 602-7477 Fax: (905) 602-7476 Halifax Office: 163 Wyse Road Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3A 1M5 Tel: (902) 455-1095 Fax: (902) 455-1855

2.

(a) Name of Respondent: JustUS! Coffee Roasters Co-Op (b) Address of Respondent: 5896 Spring Garden Road, Halifax, NS B3H 0A6 Tel: (902) 423-0856 Corporate Head Office: 11865 Highway #1, R.R. #3 Wolfville, NS, B4P 2R3 Tel: (902) 542-7474 Fax: (902) 542-4436

3.

(a) Names of Aggrieved Persons: i) ii) Shay XXXXXXX Elijah XXXXXXX

(b) Addresses and Telephone Numbers of Aggrieved Persons: XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX 4. (a) Nature of Complaint: Please see attached Schedule A. (b) Contrary to Section 53 Subsection(s) (1)(a), 3(a)(i), 3(b), 3(e) of the Trade Union Act of Nova Scotia. The Complainant has requested the Respondent to take the following action: N/A 6. (a) The following steps have been taken on behalf of the person(s) aggrieved for the adjustment or settlement of the matters giving rise to the complaint: The filing of the present complaint. (b) The degree of settlement or adjustment is as follows: None. 7. Date when the complainant learned of the action or circumstances given rise to the complaint: The complainant first became aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint on or around March 27, 2013. 8. A copy of any collective agreement binding upon the parties is enclosed. N/A 9. The Complainant requests the Labour Relations Board to: Please see attached Schedule B.

5.

I / We James Cameron Nelson, President and Tom Galivan, Secretary-Treasurer, declare that the statements made and information given herein are true in substance and in fact and we make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath, and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.

Declared by the said

and

before me at The City of Mississauga in the Province of Ontario this 27th day of March, 2013

Bruce Price Legal Counsel (a member in good standing of the Law Society of Upper Canada) Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General and Professional Workers Union A commissioner for taking affidavits, etc. pursuant to s. 67(1) of the Evidence Act, R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 154. A commissioner of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
(To be declared before a Commissioner for taking affidavits or any other person authorized by law to administer an oath.)* Strike out if not applicable

Schedule A Nature of the Complaint / Statement of Material Facts The Complainant, Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General and Professional Workers Union (SEIU Local 2 or the Union), relies on the following material facts in support of the present complaint: The Parties 1) SEIU Local 2 is a trade union within the meaning of that term in the Trade Union Act (the Act). 2) The Respondent, JustUS! Coffee Roasters Co-op (JustUS or the Employer), is a company engaged in the operation of coffee shops at several locations in Nova Scotia, including a location on Spring Garden Road in downtown Halifax. Summary 3) The present unfair labour practice complaint concerns violations of the Act committed by the Respondent, which occurred when it summarily dismissed two employees, known to be supporters of SEIU Local 2, at its location at 5896 Spring Garden Road, in the midst of an organizing drive. Background 4) SEIU Local 2 commenced an organizing drive with respect to employees of JustUS working at 5896 Spring Garden Road (Spring Garden location) in Halifax at the end of December 2012. 5) Throughout the course of January and February 2013, the Unions organizer, Mr. Jason Edwards, held a series of meetings and had numerous discussions with employees at the Spring Garden location. During that period of time, a number of employees signed membership cards with SEIU Local 2. 6) On March 10, 2013, as part of the continuing organizing drive, the vast majority of staff at the Spring Garden location, along with Mr. Edwards, met with a representative of the Canadian Labour Congress, to discuss unionization and the benefits of unionization, among other things. 7) The following day, Ms. Alison XXXXX, the Team Lead (Store Manager) at the Spring Garden location, along with Ms. Holly XXXXX, a Team Lead at another location, spoke with most, if not all, employees at that location, including two employees that were the Unions key inside organizers, who would be terminated from employment shortly thereafter. Ms. XXXXX explicitly asked employees if they were discussing unionization. Ms. XXXXX also suggested that she had received a phone call from a concerned parent about the Unions organizing drive.

8) The Unions organizing drive had been discussed openly among the workforce at the Spring Garden location. Two employees, Shay XXXXX and Elijah XXXXX, were known by the vast majority of staff to have been key inside organizers for the Union. In addition, both of these individuals has signed union cards in front of other workers and openly discussed unionization with SEIU Local 2 with other staff. The Respondent was well aware that these individuals were internal leaders in the Unions organizing drive. 9) On March 27, 2013, both Shay XXXXX and Elijah XXXXX were terminated from their employment. At the time of the terminations, both individuals had been employed with the Respondent for over a year, with Shay XXXXX being employed for more than 18 months. Despite this, the Employers reasons for terminating Shay XXXXX were indicated as being not a right fit for the company and not committed to the co-op. As for Elijah XXXXX, the Employer gave multiple and completely improper reasons for the termination, such as physicality, tendonitis, future plans, and personal stress. It was clear that the Employer had no rational or defensible basis for the terminations and therefore provided the reasons set out above. 10) The work location at issue is a small operation, employing 12 non-managerial employees (until the recent terminations). In light of this fact, the effect of the Employers actions is magnified and creates a clear chill among the workforce, in terms of any continued viable organizing efforts. The Employers actions were calculated and imposed specifically to send a message to employees that they would be putting their employment in jeopardy if they chose to support SEIU Local 2. Submissions 11) In light of the foregoing, SEIU Local 2 submits that it is clear that the Respondents actions, in terminating the Unions two key internal organizers, were aimed at creating a chilling effect that would, in effect, bring an end to the Unions organizing drive. This action has resulted in multiple violations of the Act, as set out on the attached Form 16. 12) As a result, the remedies requested in Schedule B are necessary in order to redress the harm occasioned by the Respondents actions.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Schedule B The Complainant, Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General & Professional Workers Union Local 2 (SEIU Local 2), respectfully requests the following remedies: 1) A declaration that the Respondent, JustUS! Coffee Roasters Co-op (JustUS), has violated ss. 53(1)(a), and/or 3(a)(i), and/or 3(b), and/or 3(e) of the Trade Union Act (the Act). 2) An Order that JustUs cease and desist from violating the Act. 3) An Order that JustUs reinstate Shay XXXXX and Elijah XXXXX to their employment at JustUS Spring Garden location, with no loss of service, along with an Order that for compensation for all losses incurred as a result of the Respondents actions. 4) An Order that SEIU Local 2 be provided with an opportunity to meet with all non-managerial employees for a period of thirty minutes on a date of its choosing, during regular working hours, in a location that is near to, or within, the Respondents location. 5) An Order that the final decision in this matter be posted in a conspicuous location at the workplace and remain posted for a period of thirty (30) days. 6) An Order that JustUS be required to post a notice in a conspicuous location at the workplace, where it will come to the attention of all employees, signed by a senior official of JustUS, acknowledging that it violated the Act, describing the manner in which it violated the Act, and further advising that all employees have the right to freely choose their bargaining agent, without restraint or interference. 7) Such other relief as the Complainant may request and the Board deems just.