Great Atlantic v. UFCW, (1984) 3 O.A.C. 304 (DC)

Judge:Craig, J., Holland and Boland, JJ.
Court:Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Case Date:March 28, 1984
Jurisdiction:Ontario
Citations:(1984), 3 O.A.C. 304 (DC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Great Atlantic v. UFCW (1984), 3 O.A.C. 304 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Great Atlantic & Pacific Company of Canada Limited v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175 and 633 and Kruger

Indexed As: Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175 and 633 and Kruger

Ontario Divisional Court

Craig, J., Holland and Boland, JJ.

May 3, 1984.

Summary:

An employee was dismissed for theft from his employer. He grieved against the dismissal. A sole arbitrator affirmed that the employee was guilty of theft but reinstated the employee subject to certain conditions. The employer applied to set aside the arbitrator's decision on the ground that he exceeded his jurisdiction. The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

Labour Law - Topic 7058

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Powers of arbitrator - Alteration or amendment of collective agreement - An employee committed theft from his employer - An arbitrator, inter alia, ordered that a record of the incident remain permanently on the employee's record - The collective agreement provided that disciplinary warnings or reprimands made more than 12 months before disciplinary action could not be used against an employee in subsequent disciplinary proceedings - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the arbitrator did not alter, modify or amend the provision in imposing the penalty - See paragraphs 8 to 10.

Labour Law - Topic 7058

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Powers of arbitrator - Alteration or amendment of collective agreement - An employee stole from his employer - An arbitrator, inter alia, held that should the employee be guilty of further dishonest behaviour, the employee and union were required to accept the penalty and not grieve - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by indirectly attempting to alter or vary the provisions of the collective agreement respecting discharge grievances - See paragraphs 14 to 18.

Labour Law - Topic 7060

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Powers of arbitrator - Variation or alteration of disciplinary penalty - S. 44(9) of the Labour Relations Act provided that where an employee was discharged or disciplined for cause and the collective agreement contained no specific penalty for the infraction, the arbitrator may substitute a penalty which was just and reasonable in the circumstances - An employee stole from his employer - An arbitrator, inter alia, required the employee and union to accept the employer's penalty and not grieve, should the employee be guilty of further dishonest behaviour - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction - See paragraphs 11 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Ainscough et al. v. McGavin Toastmaster Ltd. (1975), 4 N.R. 618; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Association of Radio & Television Employees of Canada (CUPE-CLC) v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 40 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 228, sect. 44(9) [paras. 11, 17-18]; sect. 49(10) [para. 15].

Counsel:

A.M. Gans, for the applicant;

D.J. Wray, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Craig, J. Holland and Boland, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on March 28, 1984. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered by J. Holland, J., and released on May 3, 1984.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP