Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corp., (2015) 333 O.A.C. 36 (DC)

• Judge: Aitken, Lederer and Ramsay, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 333 O.A.C. 36 (DC);2015 ONSC 729

CUPW v. Can. Post (2015), 333 O.A.C. 36 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.035

Canadian Union of Postal Workers (applicant) v. Canada Post Corporation (respondent)

(14-2002: 2015 ONSC 729)

Indexed As: Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corp.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Aitken, Lederer and Ramsay, JJ.

March 10, 2015.

Summary:

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) brought a national policy grievance, arguing that seniority for an On Call Relief Employee who subsequently became a route-holding Rural and Suburban Mail Carrier should be calculated on the basis of his or her date of hire as an On Call Relief Employee. Canada Post's position was that seniority for such an employee should be calculated on the basis of their date of hire as a route-holding Rural and Suburban Mail Carrier. An Arbitrator decided in Canada Post's favour and dismissed the grievance. CUPW applied for judicial review, asking that the award be set aside as unreasonable.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Lederer, J., dissenting, dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 6477

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Terms - General - Seniority clauses - [See Labour Law - Topic 9585 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9585

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Terms and conditions of employment - Seniority clauses - The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) brought a national policy grievance, arguing that seniority for an On Call Relief Employee (OCRE) who subsequently became a route-holding Rural and Suburban Mail Carrier (RHRSCM) should be calculated on the basis of their date of hire as an OCRE - Canada Post's position was that seniority for such an employee should be calculated on the basis of their date of hire as an RHRSCM - It was common ground that: an employee who was hired as an OCRE and then became an RHRSCM was not rehired at the point of transition; and an employee remained a member of the same bargaining unit throughout their employment in either category - An Arbitrator decided in Canada Post's favour and dismissed the grievance - The Arbitrator found that the parties' explicit agreement in Appendix E that Article 8 did not apply to OCREs constituted a specific qualification to Article 8's more general language providing for the determination of seniority on the basis of continuous employment in the bargaining unit - CUPW applied for judicial review - It argued that the only reasonable interpretation of the collective agreement was that Appendix "E" was spent and no longer relevant once an OCRE became an RHRSCM - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application - See paragraphs 1 to 42.

Cases Noticed:

Tung-Sol of Canada Ltd. (1964), 15 L.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 13].

Amtec v. USW, Local 4054 (2012), 226 L.A.C.(4th) 396, refd to. [para. 14].

DHL Express (Canada) Ltd. v. Canadian Auto Workers (2004), 124 L.A.C.(4th) 271, refd to. [para. 14].

Corporation of the County of Essex v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (2003), 115 L.A.C.(4th) 316, refd to. [para. 14].

Falconbridge Ltd. v. CAW, 2000 CarswellOnt 9184; 61 C.L.A.S. 378, refd to. [paras. 15, 58, footnote 14].

Black Diamond Cheese v. Black Diamond Cheese Employees' Independent Union, [2000] L.V.I. 3144-5; 2000 CarswellOnt 4063, dist. [paras. 15, 56, footnote 12].

Imperial Oil Strathcona Refinery and Communication, Energy and Paperworks Union (2004), 130 L.A.C.(4th) 239, refd to. [para. 15].

Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick - see New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir.

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. [paras. 17, 44, footnote 3].

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. (2014), 461 N.R. 335; 59 B.C.L.R.(5th) 1; 2014 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 24].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 1].

Skeene v. Cohen, 2014 ONSC 7315 (CanLII), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 5].

Canada Post Corp. v. CUPW (2005), 82 C.L.A.S. 281; 2005 CarswellNat 2534, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Taggart, M., Ed., The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy, in The Province of Administrative Law (1997), p. 286 [para. 44, footnote 1].

Counsel:

Jean-Marc Eddie, for the applicant;

Steven Bird, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 27, 2015, by Aitken, Lederer and Ramsay, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who delivered the following decision on March 10, 2015, which included the following opinions:

Aitken, J. (Ramsay, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 42;

Lederer, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 43 to 61.