5 total
Mandatory labour arbitration clauses oust court jurisdiction over tort and Charter claims arising from collective agreements.
The appellant employee was suspended for abusing sick leave benefits after the employer hired private investigators who gained entry to his home under false pretenses.
The employee filed grievances under the collective agreement and also commenced a court action for torts and Charter breaches.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the mandatory arbitration clause in the Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on labour arbitrators for all disputes arising from the collective agreement.
The Court concluded that both the tort and Charter claims arose from the administration of the collective agreement, and that the arbitrator was a court of competent jurisdiction empowered to grant Charter remedies, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the courts.
Administrative tribunals with power to decide questions of law have jurisdiction to determine Charter validity of their enabling statutes.
The union filed an application for certification before the Ontario Labour Relations Board relating to employees at the appellant's chicken hatchery.
The appellant argued the employees were agricultural workers excluded from the Labour Relations Act under s. 2(b).
The union gave notice it would challenge s. 2(b) under the Charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that an administrative tribunal with the power to decide questions of law has the concomitant power to determine whether that law is constitutionally valid under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Board therefore had jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of s. 2(b) of its enabling statute.
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by settling workload compensation and grievance procedures without grievors' consent.
The complainant and several other professors filed complaints alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.
The complaints arose from an ongoing internal political dispute within the local union.
The complainants alleged that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith by settling compensation issues arising from workload arbitration awards without their consent, by entering into a consent award that restricted who could act as a union steward during grievance meetings, and by negotiating changes to the collective agreement regarding union representation.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the union had the legal authority to settle grievances and workload complaints without the individual grievors' consent.
The Board concluded that the union's decisions were based on reasonable grounds, were not improperly motivated, and were a legitimate exercise of its responsibility to manage the grievance process and administer the collective agreement.
Motion to remove union's counsel for conflict of interest dismissed; Board declined jurisdiction on discretionary grounds.
The complainant brought a motion to remove the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest arising from prior representation.
The Board dismissed the motion, expressing serious doubts about its statutory jurisdiction to regulate the professional conduct of barristers and solicitors, noting that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act protects the right to counsel and specifically exempts lawyers from the tribunal's power to exclude incompetent agents.
Ultimately, the Board declined to entertain the motion on discretionary grounds, finding that the conflict issue was entirely separate from the merits of the duty of fair representation complaint and that determining it would cause undue delay and risk conflicting decisions with the Law Society of Upper Canada or the courts.
Provincial legislation restricting the political activities of civil servants in federal elections is constitutionally valid.
The appellants, a union and individual provincial civil servants, challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Ontario Public Service Act that prohibited them from engaging in certain political activities, including during federal elections.
They argued the province lacked jurisdiction to legislate regarding federal elections.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned provisions were intra vires the province.
The Court found the legislation was validly enacted under the province's power to amend its constitution and regulate the tenure of provincial offices, as it aimed to ensure the political impartiality of the provincial public service, a fundamental principle of responsible government.