Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corp. et al., 2015 FC 355

• Judge: Bédard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 355;(2015), 477 F.T.R. 71 (FC)

CUPW v. Can. Post (2015), 477 F.T.R. 71 (FC)

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: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.030

Syndicat des Travailleurs et Travailleuses des Postes (demandeur) v. Société Canadienne des Postes, Monsieur Alain Rhainds et Madame Dominique Allard (défendeurs)

(T-422-14; 2015 CF 355; 2015 FC 355)

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

Federal Court

Bédard, J.

March 20, 2015.

Summary:

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers filed grievances alleging that Canada Post Corp. was not complying with those provisions of the collective agreement that governed the organization of day-to-day work and the parameters for the taking of meal periods by letter carriers. An arbitrator allowed the grievances. The arbitration award was registered with the court. The union applied to have Canada Post found in contempt of the arbitrator's award.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The arbitration award was not sufficiently clear and precise to ground a finding of contempt.

Contempt - Topic 683

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Requirement of clear and unambiguous order - A collective agreement between a union and Canada Post provided that letter carriers were to return to the postal installation after the morning portion of their route, have a meal period from 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m., and perform the afternoon portion of their route after 12:30 p.m. - An appendix to the collective agreement provided for deviations from this arrangement - It stated that there might be "individual circumstances when a letter carrier may choose to not return to the installation for the meal period" - Canada Post took this to mean that employees could take their meal periods at the place and time of their choosing - The union grieved, arguing that the appendix did not permit employees to advance their meal period or begin delivering the afternoon portion of their route before 12:30 p.m. - An arbitrator allowed the grievances, finding that Canada Post violated the appendix by not verifying whether employees had individual circumstances - Canada Post interpreted this to mean that it could apply the appendix only to employees who made a request by citing individual circumstances, but that those employees could still take their meal periods where and when they chose - The Federal Court dismissed the union's application to have Canada Post found in contempt of the arbitration award - The arbitration award was not sufficiently precise regarding the scope and interpretation of the appendix - It did not clearly dictate how Canada Post was to interpret the appendix when it applied it to employees who had actually cited individual circumstances - Neither the union's interpretation of the appendix nor Canada Post's was unreasonable.

Contempt - Topic 688

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Arbitration award - [See Contempt - Topic 683 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217; 111 N.R. 185; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 84, refd to. [para. 8].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612; 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 8].

Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corp., [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 136; 2011 FC 232, refd to. [para. 8].

Rameau v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 420 F.T.R. 274; 2012 FC 1286, refd to. [para. 8].

Minister of National Revenue v. Marangoni (2013), 442 F.T.R. 261; 2013 FC 1154, refd to. [para. 9].

Orr v. Fort McKay First Nation et al., [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 772; 2012 FC 1436, refd to. [para. 10].

Minister of National Revenue v. Vallelonga (2013), 442 F.T.R. 270; 2013 FC 1155, refd to. [para. 10].

Telus Mobility v. Telecommunications Workers Union (2004), 317 N.R. 317; 2004 FCA 59, refd to. [para. 11].

Warman v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (2011), 423 N.R. 120; 2011 FCA 297, refd to. [para. 12].

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 529 v. Central Broadcasting Co., [1977] 2 F.C. 78 (T.D.), appld. [para. 62].

Counsel:

Céline Allaire, for the applicant;

Michel Carle and Anaïs Lacroix, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Philion Leblanc Beaudry, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents.

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on March 16 and 17, 2015, before Bédard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons on March 20, 2015.