Maryse Tremblay

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's preliminary award regarding jurisdiction over a workplace grievance.

The union argued the application was premature as the arbitration was not yet complete.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative process, and dismissed the application as premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision dismissing his unjust dismissal complaint under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code.

The adjudicator had found that the applicant's position was eliminated due to a legitimate restructuring and that the process used to select the applicant for termination was not done in bad faith, meaning the complaint could not be considered pursuant to s. 242(3.1) of the Code.

The Federal Court held that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Bell Canada brought an application for judicial review to set aside an arbitrator's award finding that Bell violated a collective agreement by outsourcing work, resulting in the loss of 31 jobs.

The arbitrator had determined that the affected employees, who were transferred from a wholly owned subsidiary following a single employer declaration under the Canada Labour Code, were entitled to outsourcing protection under a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreements and the remedial nature of the single employer declaration to be justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The union applied to the Canada Labour Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of foremen employed by the appellant.

The Board rejected the application, finding that the appropriate unit consisted of all foremen employed by all members of the employers' association.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Board's decision, concluding it acted outside its jurisdiction by effectively imposing a multi-employer unit without the union's consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to suggest a different composition.

The Court found the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable given its expertise and the need for industrial stability.