Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, (2004) 348 A.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Tuesday November 04, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 348 A.R. 1 (SCC);2004 SCC 28;[2004] 7 WWR 1;238 DLR (4th) 385;[2004] ACS no 24;348 AR 1;[2004] 1 SCR 727;[2004] CarswellAlta 533;11 Admin LR (4th) 1;321 WAC 1;[2004] SCJ No 24 (QL);319 NR 201;AZ-50232834;26 Alta LR (4th) 201;130 ACWS (3d) 311

AUPE v. Lethbridge College (2004), 348 A.R. 1 (SCC);

    321 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. AP.148

Board of Governors of Lethbridge Community College (appellant) v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Sylvia Babin (respondents) and Canadian Labour Congress, National Union of Public and General Employees and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta (interveners)

(29323; 2004 SCC 28; 2004 CSC 28)

Indexed As: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

April 29, 2004.

Summary:

Babin, a provincial employee, grieved her dismissal. An arbitration board determined that the employer, in dismissing Babin, had failed to comply with certain requirements for dismissal for nonculpable deficiency in job performance. However, it refused to re­in­state her. It granted her damages equal to four months' salary instead. Babin and her union applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 280 A.R. 139, dismissed the application. Babin and the union ap­peal­ed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 303 A.R. 124; 273 W.A.C. 124, allowed the appeal. The employer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 9128

Public service labour relations - Adjudica­tion of grievances - Jurisdic­tion of adjudi­cators or boards - Babin, a provin­cial employee, grieved her dismissal - An ar­bi­tration board determined that the employer, in dismissing Babin, had failed to comply with certain requirements for dismissal for nonculpable deficiency in job performance - However, the board refused to reinstate her - It relied on s. 142(2) of the Labour Relations Code and granted her damages in­stead - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 142(2) did not apply to a case of nonculpable deficiency - It only applied where the arbitrator found that there was cause for discipline (i.e., the conduct was culpable but the penalty was not just and reason­able) - The Supreme Court of Can­ada disagreed - The court restored the ar­bitra­tion board's decision, holding that the board's interpretation of s. 142(2) as ap­plying to both culpable and nonculpable dismissal was reasonable - See paragraphs 24 to 47.

Labour Law - Topic 9128

Public service labour relations - Adjudica­tion of grievances - Jurisdic­tion of adjudi­cators or boards - Babin, a provin­cial em­ployee, grieved her dismissal - An arbitra­tion board held that the employer had fail­ed to comply with certain require­ments for dismissal for nonculpable defi­ciency in job performance - However, it refused to rein­state Babin - It relied on s. 142(2) of the Alberta Labour Relations Code and granted her damages instead - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "Where the conduct of the employee is nonculpable, cause to dismiss is considered only to exist if the test in Re Edith Cavell is satisfied. That case carefully sets out the necessary steps to be taken before an in­competent em­ployee can be dismissed. Where the steps are complied with, an employer is entitled to dismiss for incom­petence. Where the ar­bi­trator finds compli­ance with the Re Edith Cavell steps, there is no basis upon which to substitute pen­alty, the arbi­trator having found the dis­missal to be justified. On the other hand, where as here, the appropriate steps have not been taken the employer is obligated to reinstate." - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "this narrow and mechanistic approach to em­ployee con­duct and arbitral authority does not take full account of the arbitra­tor's dispute resolution mandate, nor does it consider adequately the myriad of employ­ment cir­cum­stances that employees and employ­ers confront. As a result, I do not believe that the criteria set out in Re Edith Cavell by themselves determine the frame­work for anal­ysis. More particularly, they should not be seen, in and of them­selves, as dictating the terms of remedial authority exercised by the arbitrator." - See para­graph 43.

Labour Law - Topic 9128

Public service labour relations - Adjudica­tion of grievances - Jurisdic­tion of adjudi­cators or boards - Babin, a provin­cial em­ployee, grieved her dismissal - An arbitra­tion board determined that the employer, in dismissing Babin, had failed to comply with certain requirements for dismissal for non­culpable deficiency in job performance - However, the Board refused to reinstate her - It relied on s. 142(2) of the Alberta Labour Relations Code and granted her dam­­ages instead - The Supreme Court of Can­ada held that the board's decision was reasonable - An arbitral consensus had de­veloped which required a finding of ex­cep­tional circum­stances before substitut­ing damages in lieu of reinstatement - Here, the board's con­cerns about the con­tinued viability of the employment rela­tionship fell squarely within the ambit of excep­tional circum­stances as reflected in the arbitral decisions - See paragraphs 49 to 57.

Labour Law - Topic 9128

Public service labour relations - Adjudica­tion of grievances - Jurisdic­tion of adjudi­cators or boards - The Supreme Court of Can­ada stated that "As a general rule, where a grievor's col­lective agree­ment rights have been viol­ated, rein­state­ment of the grievor to her previous posi­tion will normally be ordered. Depar­ture from this position should only occur where the arbi­tration board's find­ings reflect concerns that the employment rela­tionship is no longer viable. In making this deter­mina­tion, the arbitrator is entitled to con­sider all of the circumstances rel­evant to fash­ioning a lasting and final solution to the parties' dispute." - See paragraph 56.

Labour Law - Topic 9156

Public service labour relations - Discipline and dismissal of civil or public servants - Dismissal - What constitutes cause for - In­competence or incapacity - [See first, second and third La­bour Law - Topic 9128].

Labour Law - Topic 9165

Public service labour relations - Discipline and dismissal of civil or public servants - Remedies for wrongful dismissal or sus­pen­sion - [See all Labour Law - Topic 9128].

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitra­tors or grievance appeal boards - Scope of preview (incl. standard) - Section 142(2) of the Alberta Labour Relations Code pro­vid­ed that "If an arbitrator, arbitration board or other body determines that an employee has been discharged or otherwise disci­plined by an employer for cause and the collective agreement does not contain a specific penalty for the infraction that is the subject-matter of the arbitration, the arbitrator, arbitration board or other body may substitute some other penalty for the discharge or discipline that to the arbitra­tor, arbitration board or other body seems just and reasonable in all the circum­stances" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an arbitration board's interpreta­tion of s. 142(2) was reviewable on a stan­dard of reasonableness, as was the board's remedy - See paragraphs 14 to 23.

Labour Law - Topic 9675

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Grievances - Remedies - [See all Labour Law - Topic 9128].

Labour Law - Topic 9702

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction - [See all Labour Law - Topic 9128].

Cases Noticed:

Cavell (Edith) Private Hospital and Hospi­tal Employees' Union, Local 180, Re (1982), 6 L.A.C.(3d) 229 (B.C.), consd. [para. 5].

Syndicat national des employés de la Com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 14].

U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndi­cat national des employés de la Commis­sion scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 14].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 599; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 14].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 14].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 14].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automo­bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple­ment Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 16].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92 (2004), 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 17].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 17].

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 18].

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 18].

Heustis v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 768; 27 N.R. 103; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 613; 51 A.P.R. 613, refd to. [para. 18].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judi­cial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 22].

Québec (Communauté urbaine) et autres v. Corporation Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3; 171 N.R. 161; 63 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 25].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 25].

Barrie Public Utilities et al. v. Canadian Cable Television Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476; 304 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 25].

Van Steenoven Grievance - see Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.

Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, [1988] A.G.A.A. No. 43, refd to. [para. 29].

Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co. v. Arthurs, [1969] S.C.R. 85, refd to. [para. 37].

Scott (Wm.) & Co. v. Canadian Food and Allied Workers Union, Local P-162, [1977] 1 Can. L.R.B.R. 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. (1998), 230 A.R. 114 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 39].

Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (1987), 82 A.R. 19 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 41].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 41].

New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97, refd to. [para. 41].

Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476; 55 N.R. 194; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 41].

Vancouver (City) v. Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees Union (1983), 11 L.A.C.(3d) 121 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Crane Canada Inc. v. United Association of Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 170 (1990), 14 L.A.C.(4th) 253 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 48].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. University Hospitals Board (1989), 98 A.R. 384 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 50].

United Steelworkers of America, Local 12998 v. Liquid Carbonic Inc. (1996), 91 O.A.C. 304; 29 O.R.(3d) 468 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Com­munications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union, Local 777, [1998] A.G.A.A. No. 77, affd. [1999] A.R. Uned. 35 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 50].

Oliverio Grievance - see Alberta Teachers' Association v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union, Local 777.

Board of Education of Calgary v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 40, [2001] A.G.A.A. No. 13, refd to. [para. 50].

R.J. Grievance - see Board of Education of Calgary v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 40.

Chaumiere Retirement Residence v. Ser­vice Employees' Union, Local 210 (1993), 37 L.A.C.(4th) 86 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1, sect. 142(2) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings, vol. 2, 3rd sess., 21st Legisla­ture (June 7, 1998), p. 1553 [para. 32].

Brown, Donald J.M., and Beatty, David M., Canadian Labour Arbitration (3rd Ed. 1988) (2003 Supp.), §§ 1-3300 [para. 19]; 2:1401 [para. 34]; 2:2120 [para. 17].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legisla­tion in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 456 [para. 46].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 25].

Hansard (Alta.) - see Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Pro­ceedings.

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 243, 244 [para. 46].

Counsel:

William J. Armstrong, Q.C., for the appellant;

G. Brent Gawne and Margaret Peggy Kemp, for the respondents;

John Baigent, for the interveners, Cana­dian Labour Congress and National Union of Public and General Employees;

Eugene Meehan, Q.C., and Dev Chanka­singh, for the intervener, Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Laird Armstrong, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;

G. Brent Gawne, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondents;

Baigent & Jackson, Enderby, British Columbia, for the interveners, Canadian Labour Congress and National Union of Public and General Employees;

Lang Michener, Ottawa, Ontario, and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, for the intervener, Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta.

This appeal was heard on November 4, 2003, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Iacobucci, J., delivered the following decision for the court on April 29, 2004, in both official languages.