Voice Constr. Ltd. v. CGWU (2004), 346 A.R. 201 (SCC);
320 W.A.C. 201
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. AP.080
Construction & General Workers’ Union, Local 92 (appellant) v. Voice Construction Ltd. (respondent)
(29547; 2004 SCC 23; 2004 CSC 23)
Indexed As: Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers’ Union, Local 92
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
January 23, 2004.
Summary:
An employer did not hire a labourer dispatched by the union. The union grieved. An arbitrator held that the employer contravened the collective agreement by refusing to hire the labourer. The arbitrator held that the “name hire” and “dispatch” provisions of the collective agreement constituted an express restriction on the employer’s broad right to hire and select workers and that the employer was required to hire qualified workers who were properly dispatched by the union. The employer applied for judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, in a decision reported at 287 A.R. 273, allowed the application and quashed the arbitrator’s award. The union appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, Berger, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 317 A.R. 214; 284 W.A.C. 214, dismissed the appeal. The union appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the arbitrator’s award. The court held that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness and that the arbitrator’s decision met that test.
Labour Law – Topic 6617
Industrial relations – Collective agreement -Interpretation – Hiring of employees – Workers supplied by union – An employer did not hire a labourer dispatched by the union – The union grieved – An arbitrator held that the employer contravened the collective agreement by refusing to hire the labourer – The arbitrator held that the “name hire” and “dispatch” provisions of the collective agreement constituted an express restriction on the employer’s broad right to hire and select workers and that the employer was required to hire qualified workers who were properly dispatched by the union – The employer applied for judicial review – The reviewing judge held that the arbitrator amended the collective agreement and exceeded her jurisdiction by finding an express restriction on management’s rights to hire and select where none existed – The reviewing judge applied a correctness standard and quashed the arbitrator’s award – That decision was upheld on appeal – The union appealed – The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the arbitrator’s award – The reviewing judge should have determined the standard of review before assessing the arbitrator’s reasons – Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness – The arbitrator’s decision met that test.
Labour Law – Topic 6715
Industrial relations – Collective agreement -Interpretation – Management rights – Hiring qualified workers – [See
Labour Law – Topic 6617
].
Labour Law – Topic 7112
Industrial relations – Collective agreement -Enforcement – Arbitration – Judicial review – Scope of review – [See
Labour Law – Topic 6617
].
Cases Noticed:
Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 15].
Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault – see Union des employés de service.
Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 15].
Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100; 270 N.R. 153; 2001 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 15].
Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 15].
Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [paras. 15, 41].
Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [paras. 15, 40].
Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 17].
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 17].
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.), Local 720 v. Volvo Canada Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 178; 27 N.R. 502; 33 N.S.R.(2d) 22; 57 A.P.R. 22; 99 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 22].
Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Branch 63 v. Public Service Employee Relations Board (Alta.) and Board of Governors of Olds College, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 923; 42 N.R. 559; 37 A.R. 281; 21 Alta. L.R.(2d) 104; 136 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 22].
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 402; 12 Admin. L.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 22].
Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 and Hardy, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1079; 226 N.R. 319; 168 Sask.R. 104; 173 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 22].
Foothills Provincial General Hospital v. United Nurses of Alberta, Local 115 (1998), 228 A.R. 122; 188 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied, [1999] 3 S.C.R. xiii; 247 N.R. 199, refd to. [para. 26].
Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al. (2003), 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 32].
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [para. 41].
Statutes Noticed:
Labour Relations Code, S.A. 1988, c. L-1.2, sect. 140, sect. 142, sect. 143 [para. 14].
Counsel:
Lyle S.R. Kanee and Jo-Ann R. Kolmes, for the appellant;
Thomas W.R. Ross and Vicki L. Giles, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Chivers Kanee Carpenter, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;
McLennan Ross, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on January 23, 2004, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered on January 23, 2004, and reasons for judgment were delivered in both official languages on April 8, 2004, including the following opinions:
Major, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and Fish, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 38;
LeBel, J. (Deschamps, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 39 to 42.
