CITATION: National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW, Local 222) v. Johnson Controls Inc., 2010 ONCA 131
DATE: 20100218
DOCKET: C50886
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Winkler C.J.O., MacPherson and Gillese JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 222
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Johnson Controls Inc. and Brian McLean
Respondents (Respondents in Appeal)
APPLICATION UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J. 1; and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1.
Anthony Dale, for the appellant
Robert J. Atkinson and Paul E. Broad, for the respondents
Heard: February 17, 2010
On appeal from the judgment of the Divisional Court (Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice J. Douglas Cunningham, Justice James D. Carnwath and Justice Katherine E. Swinton), dated March 16, 2009.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant union advances an interpretation of s. 56(2) of the Employment Standards Act that links together the purposes of the ESA, its interpretation of this court’s decision in CAW-Canada Local 27 v. London Machinery Inc.(2006), 2006 CanLII 8711 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 444, and a careful analysis of the words of s. 56(2) of the ESA.
[2] We have no hesitation saying that the appellant’s interpretation of s. 56(2) of the ESA is a possible, plausible and reasonable one. However, precisely the same observation can be made about the arbitrator’s different interpretation of the same provision. The reality is that in this case, and in many cases involving the interpretation of the language of collective agreements and employment statutes, there is more than one possible interpretation.
[3] That said, the question becomes, as Swinton J. expressed it in the decision of the Divisional Court affirming the arbitrator’s award, whether the impugned interpretation “was within a range of reasonable outcomes”. In our view, the arbitrator’s decision easily comes within this test. The arbitrator’s interpretation is not the only one, or perhaps even the better interpretation. It is, however, a reasonable interpretation.
[4] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $5000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.