Dominion Stores Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Stores Union Locals 545, 579 and 582, and Duchesneau-McLachlan, (1984) 6 O.A.C. 157 (DC)

Judge:Osler, Galligan and Montgomery, JJ.
Court:Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Case Date:October 05, 1984
Jurisdiction:Ontario
Citations:(1984), 6 O.A.C. 157 (DC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Dominion Stores Ltd. v. RWDSU (1984), 6 O.A.C. 157 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 224;

And In The Matter Of the Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 228, as amended;

And In The Matter Of an award of a Board of Arbitration composed of Louisette Duchesneau-McLachlan, Sole Arbitrator, dated August 16, 1983, under a collective agreement between Dominion Stores Limited and Retail, Wholesale and Department Stores Union Locals 545, 579 and 582.

Indexed As: Dominion Stores Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Stores Union Locals 545, 579 and 582, and Duchesneau-McLachlan

Ontario Divisional Court

Osler, Galligan and Montgomery, JJ.

October 19, 1984.

Summary:

Several full-time employees of Dominion Stores were laid off because of lack of work, thus losing their status and benefits as full-time employees under the collective agreement. Many of the employees exercised their right to claim preference to work part-time up to 37 hours per week. In fact, many of the employees who were laid off were now doing the same work and working for almost the same number of hours per week. The union grieved on behalf of the employees. A single arbitrator allowed the grievance and held that the employees were still entitled to benefits as full-time employees. Dominion Stores applied to quash the arbitrator's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 6416

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Fulltime employee, defined - An employer altered the working hours of its fulltime employees, causing them to lose benefits under their collective agreement - Persons "regularly employed for not more than 24 hours per week" were defined as part-time employees and had their own agreement - The Ontario Divisional Court upheld an arbitrator's decision that any laid-off full-time employee who was regularly scheduled for a total of more than 24 hours of part-time work per week was still entitled to benefits as a full-time employee.

Counsel:

D.W. Brady, for the applicant;

A.M. Minsky, Q.C., and S. Tatrallyay, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Osler, Galligan and Montgomery, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on October 5, 1984. The decision of the Divisional Court was released on October 19, 1984, when the following opinions were filed:

Osler, J., orally - see paragraphs 1 to 12;

Galligan, J. - see paragraphs 13 to 16.

Montgomery, J., concurred with Galligan, J.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP