Employment and Labour Law - SCC

The appellant appealed a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal that had set aside an arbitration award regarding a company's 'no beard' rule.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting reasons in the court below, and restored the initial order dismissing the union's application to set aside the arbitration award.

The respondent union obtained an arbitration award against Fanshawe College regarding vacation pay and holiday entitlement.

The union then sought to enforce this award against the appellant colleges, who were not parties to the arbitration, arguing that centralized bargaining under The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 meant all colleges were bound by the award.

The union initiated contempt proceedings when the appellants refused to comply.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statutory framework and the collective agreement did not establish centralized arbitration.

The appellant colleges were not notified of or invited to participate in the arbitration, and therefore were not bound by the award.

The appeal was allowed and the contempt proceedings were dismissed.

The appellant, an air traffic controller, sought to appeal the appointment of another candidate to a position he had applied for.

The Public Service Commission determined under s. 21(b) of the Public Service Employment Act that the appellant's opportunity for advancement had not been prejudicially affected, denying him the right to appeal the appointment.

The appellant applied to the Federal Court of Appeal to review this decision under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission's opinion was administrative in nature and not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis.

The appellant employer appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision dismissing its challenge to a Canada Labour Relations Board order.

The Board had varied a 1963 certification order to update the description of the bargaining unit.

The appellant argued this was effectively a new certification application that improperly expanded the unit without determining majority support or appropriateness, and that it improperly included free lancers.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's order merely updated the description to reflect current classifications, did not enlarge the bargaining unit, and expressly excluded free lancers.

The employer successfully applied for unemployment insurance premium reductions for 1974, 1975, and 1976.

In 1977, an officer of the Unemployment Insurance Commission rejected the application for that year and retroactively revoked the reductions granted for the previous three years.

The employer sought review of the revocation.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the officer exercised a quasi-judicial function and lacked the express power to revoke previous decisions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Commission's appeal, confirming that the statutory scheme and regulations did not permit the Commission or its officers to retroactively and suo motu revoke premium reductions previously granted.

The appellant, a probationary civil servant, was dismissed by the Crown.

He grieved the dismissal under a collective agreement, and an arbitration board ordered his confirmation as a permanent employee.

The Crown subsequently terminated his employment by Order in Council, relying on its statutory power to dismiss at pleasure under the Civil Service Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions for collective bargaining in the Civil Service Joint Council Act and the collective agreement displaced the Crown's unilateral power to dismiss at pleasure.

The appeal was allowed, and the grievance was directed to arbitration.

The appellant, a unilingual air traffic controller, was involuntarily transferred from Montreal to Cornwall after his position was designated bilingual.

He accepted the transfer under protest to avoid dismissal and sought a declaration that he was entitled to remain in his former position.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Order protected the appellant from being removed from his position solely for lacking bilingual capacity.

The Court further held that the appellant's rights were not extinguished by accepting the transfer under protest, as employees should not be forced to risk disciplinary action to preserve their legal rights.

The respondent, a probationary employee, was dismissed without cause.

She filed a grievance under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, arguing that the Act gave her statutory rights outside the collective agreement, which denied probationary employees the right to grieve a dismissal.

The adjudicator and the Court of Appeal ruled in her favour.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the Act does not confer substantive rights beyond those in the collective agreement.

Since the agreement allowed the employer to dismiss probationary employees without cause, the adjudicator erred in requiring the employer to establish fault.

The appellant, a probationary police constable, was dismissed by the chief of police.

The collective agreement and regulations vested the power of dismissal exclusively in the Board of Commissioners of Police.

The Board later confirmed the dismissal without passing a resolution, taking minutes, or notifying the appellant.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the dismissal was unlawful because the chief of police had no authority to dismiss the appellant, and the Board failed to fulfill its statutory function by not notifying the appellant or giving him an opportunity to be heard.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was reinstated.

The appellant was excluded from a closed competition in the Public Service because his maximum rate of pay was below the prescribed minimum.

He appealed, arguing that restricting eligibility based on a minimum salary level without regard to the occupational nature of the position was invalid under section 13 of the Public Service Employment Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissenting judge in the Federal Court of Appeal, holding that the Commission adopted an unauthorized criterion for restricting eligibility.

The appeal was allowed and the decisions of the lower court and the Appeal Board were set aside.

The appellants sold their manufacturing business to the respondents and signed a restrictive covenant prohibiting them from competing for five years after the sale or after terminating their employment, whichever was later.

Nine years later, the appellants resigned and started a competing business.

The respondents sued for breach of the covenant.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that the covenant was clear, unambiguous, and enforceable.

The Court found the covenant reasonable between the parties and in the public interest, rejecting the appellants' arguments that the respondents' alleged monopolistic practices rendered the covenant void.

The respondent, a casual employee of the Quebec government, claimed $168 for vacation, holidays, and sick leave in the Provincial Court, Small Claims Division.

The Provincial Court allowed the claim.

The appellant sought a writ of evocation, arguing the Provincial Court lacked jurisdiction because the employment relationship was statutory, not contractual, and alternatively, that the claim was a grievance subject to arbitration under a collective agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the employment relationship was contractual and the collective agreement did not apply to casual employees.

Therefore, the Provincial Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba, which dismissed their applications for orders declaring that arbitrators nominated by the respondents under s. 387(2) of The Public Schools Act be disqualified.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered an oral judgment dismissing the appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the judgments of the Court of Appeal.

The appeals were dismissed without costs.

The respondents, taxi drivers, filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the appellant taxi company.

The Board of Industrial Relations determined that an employer-employee relationship existed.

The appellant applied for certiorari to quash the decision, which was dismissed by the lower courts.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the privative clause did not bar certiorari for errors of law on the face of the record.

The Court found the Board erred in law by ignoring the exhaustive statutory definitions of 'employer' and 'employee'.

Because the drivers leased their vehicles and received no wages from the company, they were not employees within the meaning of the Act.

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose under s. 423(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, specifically to prevent members of a union from participating in lawful union activities under s. 110(1) of the Canada Labour Code.

The Provincial Court quashed the information, but the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Court of Appeal ordered the matter to proceed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that 'unlawful purpose' in s. 423(2)(a) means contrary to law (prohibited by federal or provincial legislation).

Since preventing participation in union activities is not explicitly prohibited by legislation, the information did not disclose an offence known to law.

The appellants, school teachers who took maternity leave during the school year, were denied pregnancy benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the months of July and August.

The Unemployment Insurance Commission argued that the lump sum salary adjustment paid upon their separation from employment was attributable to the summer months, meaning there was no interruption of earnings.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, holding that the adjustment payment was for services rendered prior to the leave and no part of it was attributable to July and August.

The teachers were therefore entitled to pregnancy benefits during the summer months.

The employer claimed damages against two unions following an unlawful strike, alleging a violation of the no-strike clauses in their collective agreements.

The unions refused to appoint an arbitrator, arguing the claims were not grievances under the collective agreement or the Labour Code.

The Minister of Labour appointed an arbitrator who affirmed his jurisdiction, a decision upheld by the Superior Court but reversed by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that a claim for damages resulting from the violation of a collective agreement constitutes a grievance within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

The respondent was receiving unemployment benefits when an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act took effect on January 1, 1976, reducing the age of entitlement from 70 to 65.

The respondent was over 65 but under 70.

On February 1, 1976, he began receiving a Quebec Pension Plan retirement pension, which was a disqualifying event under the pre-amendment Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under section 35(c) of the Interpretation Act, the respondent's accrued rights under the pre-amendment Act continued, meaning he was entitled to benefits for January 1976, but his entitlement terminated on January 31, 1976, when the pension became payable.

The appellant company appealed an award of damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that deductions should be made for income tax and unemployment insurance benefits.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that it would be illogical to allow the employer a deduction for income tax not payable, and doubting the correctness of previous decisions that damages for wrongful dismissal are not taxable.

The Court also held that unemployment insurance benefits are a consequence of the contract of employment and cannot be deducted from damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant employee was terminated after an extended absence due to knee pain.

The employer relied on a collective agreement clause cancelling seniority after 24 months of absence.

The union grieved, arguing a 48-month period applied under a clause for 'illness occurring or contracted while in the Company's plant'.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding the clause covered non-industrial illnesses appearing during employment.

The Superior Court and Court of Appeal authorized a writ of evocation, holding the arbitrator altered the agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable and did not exceed his jurisdiction, nor did he breach natural justice by changing his preliminary opinion.