Extra Foods v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 et al., 2005 SKQB 318

• Judge: Krueger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 19, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2005 SKQB 318;(2005), 266 Sask.R. 55 (QB)

Extra Foods v. UFCW (2005), 266 Sask.R. 55 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.051

Extra Foods, a division of Westfair Foods Ltd. (applicant) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400, and an Arbitration Board Chaired by James Scharfstein (respondents)

(2005 Q.B.G. No. 399; 2005 SKQB 318)

Indexed As: Extra Foods v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Krueger, J.

July 19, 2005.

Summary:

A union filed a policy grievance claiming that the employer failed to fill a full-time vacancy in its meat department as required by a Letter of Agreement regarding meat wrappers and in breach of the collective agreement. An arbitration board determined that the Letter of Agreement formed part of the collective agreement and that the Letter of Agreement required the employer to maintain two full-time meat wrappers in its Saskatoon stores. The employer applied for judicial review of the arbitration board's decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Estoppel - Topic 1163

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Representation - By conduct - Practice or course of conduct - [See Labour Law - Topic 6064 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6064

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - General - Collective agreement defined - A union filed a policy grievance claiming that the employer failed to fill a full-time vacancy in its meat department as required by a Letter of Agreement regarding meat wrappers and in breach of the collective agreement - The Letter of Agreement had not been specifically incorporated into a new collective agreement entered into between the parties - The employer argued that the parties' past practice had been to incorporate letters of agreement into new collective agreements by specific reference and that the failure to do so in this case led the employer to believe that the Letter of Agreement would not become part of the new collective agreement - An arbitration board found from a review of all of the circumstances that the parties intended the Letter of Agreement to survive - The arbitration board concluded that the Letter of Agreement formed part of the collective agreement and that the doctrine of estoppel had no application - On an application for judicial review, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the arbitration board did not err by incorporating the Letter of Agreement into the collective agreement - Its decision met the standard of review of correctness - See paragraphs 21 to 28.

Labour Law - Topic 6413

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Application of doctrine estoppel - [See Labour Law - Topic 6064 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7112

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Scope of review - A union filed a policy grievance claiming that the employer failed to fill a full-time vacancy in its meat department as required by a Letter of Agreement regarding meat wrappers and in breach of the collective agreement - An arbitration board determined that the Letter of Agreement formed part of the collective agreement and that the Letter of Agreement required the employer to maintain two full-time meat wrappers in its Saskatoon stores - The employer applied for judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the question of whether the Letter of Agreement formed part of the collective agreement went to the board's jurisdiction and was reviewable on a correctness standard - The question of whether the Letter of Agreement required the employer to maintain two full-time meat wrappers in its Saskatoon stores was one of interpretation of fact and the standard of review was reasonableness - See paragraph 20.

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, refd to. [para. 9].

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, refd to. [para. 9].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 321 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 9].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction and 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. 9].

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 342P-2 v. Dawn Food Products (Canada) Ltd. et al., (2005), 259 Sask.R. 49; 2005 SKQB 11, refd to. [para. 9].

University of Saskatchewan v. University Employees' Union, Local 1975 (2004), 251 Sask.R. 27; 2004 SKQB 286, refd to. [para. 9].

Huerto v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (2005), 263 Sask.R. 214; 2005 SKQB 94, refd to. [para. 9].

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; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 14].

Eurocan Pulp & Paper Co. v. Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 298 (First Aid Attendants) (1998), 72 L.A.C.(4th) 153 (B.C. Arb. Bd.), refd to. [para. 22].

Alberta Wheat Pool Grain Workers' Union, Local 333, Re (1994), 44 L.A.C.(4th) 382 (B.C. Arb. Bd.), refd to. [para. 22].

Quaker Oats Co. of Canada v. Service Employees Union, Local 183 (2000), 91 L.A.C.(4th) 1 (Ont. Arb. Bd.), refd to. [para. 25].

Counsel:

L.F. Seiferling, Q.C., for the applicant;

R.M. Gillies, for the respondent Union.

This application was heard before Krueger, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on July 19, 2005.