Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. University Hospitals Board, 1991 CanLII 62 (SCC), [1991] 2 SCR 201

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees Appellant

v.

The University Hospitals Board Respondent

Indexed as: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. University Hospitals Board

File No.: 21775.

1991: June 10.

Present: Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

Labour relations ‑‑ Arbitration ‑‑ Judicial review ‑‑ Collective agreement ‑‑ Reclassification ‑‑ Whether arbitration board's interpretation of collective agreement patently unreasonable.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (1989), 1989 ABCA 275, 102 A.R. 62, affirming a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench (1988), 1988 CanLII 3909 (AB KB), 91 A.R. 236, which dismissed appellant's application to set aside a decision of an arbitration board. Appeal dismissed.

G. Brent Gawne and Janet Dixon, for the appellant.

Stephen D. Hillier, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We need not hear from you, Mr. Hillier. We are all of the view that this appeal fails.

At the outset it is to be remembered that the issue in an appeal of the exercise of judicial review is, as has been agreed upon by both parties, whether the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement and its decision were patently unreasonable.

We agree with Mr. Justice Gallant that, while there is another reasonable construction of s. 19.05 [of the collective agreement], even possibly a better one than that adopted by the Board, that which was in effect adopted by the Board is one that could arguably be adopted and, as such, cannot be said to be patently unreasonable. Nonetheless, unilateral reclassification of employees, where it is not expressly addressed in the collective agreement, with its potentially substantial effects not only on wages but also on seniority, is something that will ordinarily be undertaken only with great care and fairness and not as a routine matter.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: G. Brent Gawne & Associates, Edmonton.

Solicitors for the respondent: Field & Field Perraton Masuch, Edmonton.