Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al., 2015 MBCA 94

• Judge: Monnin, Mainella and leMaistre, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: September 15, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBCA 94;(2015), 323 Man.R.(2d) 126 (CA)

Airports Authority v. PSAC (2015), 323 Man.R.(2d) 126 (CA);

      657 W.A.C. 126

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.017

Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. (applicant/respondent) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada and Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, Local 50600 (respondents/appellants)

(AI 15-30-08358; 2015 MBCA 94)

Indexed As: Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, Mainella and leMaistre, JJ.A.

October 6, 2015.

Summary:

An arbitrator was appointed to determine 65 grievances. At issue was whether employees could receive two premiums for the same hours worked: the shift premium, which was paid to employees for all hours worked between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. as long as the majority of that shift occurred between those hours; and the weekend premium, which was paid to employees for all regularly scheduled straight time hours worked on a Saturday or Sunday. The arbitrator interpreted the relevant provisions of the collective agreement, determined that the employees were entitled to the premiums and allowed the grievances. The employer sought judicial review.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2015), 314 Man.R.(2d) 200, allowed the application, and returned the matter to the arbitrator for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The unions appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order appealed from and reinstated the arbitrator's award in its entirety with costs in favour of the union.

Administrative Law - Topic 6207

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Scope or standard of review - Question of law or jurisdiction - An arbitrator was appointed to determine 65 grievances - At issue was whether employees could receive two premiums for the same hours worked: the shift premium, which was paid to employees for all hours worked between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. as long as the majority of that shift occurred between those hours; and the weekend premium, which was paid to employees for all regularly scheduled straight time hours worked on a Saturday or Sunday - The arbitrator interpreted the relevant provisions of the collective agreements, determined that the employees were entitled to the premiums and allowed the grievances - The arbitrator's decision was overturned on judicial review - The unions appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "As this is a statutory appeal pursuant to section 89 of the Court of Queen's Bench Act, C.C.S.M., c. C-280, of an order of a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, the standard of review for this Court to apply is whether the application judge identified and applied the correct standard of review in her judicial review of the arbitrator's award. This is a question of law to be reviewed on a standard of correctness. If the application judge erred in either identifying the standard of review, or applying it, this Court is then tasked to identify and apply the appropriate standard of review to the arbitrator's decision ..." - See paragraph 13.

Labour Law - Topic 6632

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Pay or rates of pay - Pyramiding - Two or more payments for same purpose - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "'Pyramiding' is the payment of two or more monetary benefits for the same period of work pursuant to different articles of a collective agreement, compensating the employee for the same purpose ... Parties to a collective agreement are presumed to not intend to agree to pyramiding of benefits 'unless the contrary intention is clear on a fair reading of the agreement' ... The language used in the particular collective agreement is important as to how the parties have addressed the rebuttable presumption against pyramiding that exists in common law. An agreement may be silent on pyramiding, in which case the common law presumption applies. An agreement may simply restate the common law presumption. Finally, the parties may have collectively bargained their own language which may broaden or narrow, from the common law presumption against pyramiding, the ability of an employee to collect two or more monetary benefits for the same period of work regardless of the purpose of such compensation.'' - See paragraphs 17 to 19.

Labour Law - Topic 6632

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Pay or rates of pay - Pyramiding - Two or more payments for same purpose - An arbitrator was appointed to determine 65 grievances - At issue was whether employees could receive two premiums for the same hours worked: the shift premium, which was paid to employees for all hours worked between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. as long as the majority of that shift occurred between those hours; and the weekend premium, which was paid to employees for all regularly scheduled straight time hours worked on a Saturday or Sunday - The arbitrator interpreted the collective agreements and determined that the employees were entitled to both premiums - An application judge overturned the arbitrator's decision on judicial review - The unions appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the arbitrator's award - The application judge erred when she equated the paying of both premiums as being synonymous with pyramiding (expressly forbidden under the collective agreements) - The arbitrator found that the payment of both premiums for work on weekend evenings or nights did not amount to pyramiding, because the purposes for the employee to be paid the two premiums were different - There was no basis to disturb this finding - Thus, his overall conclusion that payment of those two premiums for the same hours worked would not run afoul of the clause in the collective agreements prohibiting pyramiding was within the range of possible acceptable outcomes in fact and law and thus reasonable - See paragraphs 17 to 35.

Labour Law - Topic 6638

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Pay or rates of pay - Overtime pay - [See both Labour Law - Topic 6332 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7112

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6207 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 13].

Loewen v. Manitoba Teachers' Society (2015), 315 Man.R.(2d) 123; 630 W.A.C. 123; 2015 MBCA 13, refd to. [para. 13].

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada v. Bristol Aerospace Ltd. (2008), 228 Man.R.(2d) 125; 427 W.A.C. 125; 2008 MBCA 62, refd to. [para. 13].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 14].

Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 458; 445 N.R. 1; 404 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1048 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 14].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 15].

Manitoba Nurses' Union, Selkirk Nurses Local 16 v. Selkirk and District General Hospital (2003), 180 Man.R.(2d) 201; 310 W.A.C. 201; 2003 MBCA 150, refd to. [para. 17].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Local 2424 v. Continuing Care Employees' Bargaining Association, [2002] A.G.A.A. No. 66 (Arb. Bd.), refd to. [para. 17].

Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre v. Brewery, General and Professional Workers' Union (2001), 95 L.A.C.(4th) 34 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 17].

Labatt Brewing Co. v. Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers (1980), 24 L.A.C.(2d) 312 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 18].

St. Gobain Abrasives Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 12 (2005), 140 L.A.C.(4th) 343, refd to. [para. 19].

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada, Local 222 v. Durham Region Transit Commission, [2008] O.L.A.A. No. 754, refd to. [para. 19].

Ottawa (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 503, [2010] O.L.A.A. No. 65, refd to. [para. 20].

Headwaters Health Care Centre v. Ontario Nurses' Association, [2004] O.L.A.A. No. 332, refd to. [para. 20].

Aramark Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4000, [2007] O.L.A.A. No. 672, refd to. [para. 20].

Thompson (City) v. United Steel Workers of America, Local 8223, [2004] M.G.A.D. 52, refd to. [para. 20].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 21].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 21].

G4S Cash Solutions (Canada) Ltd. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters (2014), 307 Man.R.(2d) 311; 2014 MBQB 150, refd to. [para. 21].

Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5; 425 N.R. 22; 316 B.C.A.C. 1; 537 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 29].

Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 364; 428 N.R. 107; 316 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1002 A.P.R. 1; 2012 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 29].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 30].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

A. Astritis, for the appellants;

P.D. Edwards, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 15, 2015, by Monnin, Mainella and leMaistre, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Mainella, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on October 6, 2015.