International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local D331 v. LaFarge Canada Inc., (1998) 231 A.R. 309 (QB)

• Judge: McMahon, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 22, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 231 A.R. 309 (QB)

IBB v. LaFarge Can. Inc. (1998), 231 A.R. 309 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. OC.030

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local D331 (applicant) v. LaFarge Canada Inc. (respondent)

(9801-00577)

Indexed As: International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local D331 v. LaFarge Canada Inc.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

McMahon, J.

September 22, 1998.

Summary:

A union sought judicial review of two arbitral awards.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application with respect to one of the awards.

Contracts - Topic 9911

Promissory estoppel - Where applicable - General - An arbitration board found that an employer had breached a collective agreement, but that the union was estopped from seeking relief for this breach due to its conduct during pre-contract nego­tiations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that in this regard the board was applying the general legal principle of promissory estoppel and had to be correct in its interpretation and application of those principles - Here the board was not correct in its finding of estoppel because the representation relied upon to found the estoppel occurred when there was no col­lective agreement in place - See para­graphs 26 to 37.

Labour Law - Topic 7011

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Res judicata or estoppel - A union sought judicial review of a arbitral award, arguing that the arbitration board made a reviewable error in allowing the employer to call evidence of what was said during the pre-contract bargaining process in order to determine the question of estoppel - The union argued that the col­lective agreement clearly rendered evidence of negotiating history irrelevant - The board maintained that the collective agree­ment did not prevent the introduction of evidence from the bargaining session to support an estoppel argument - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the standard of review was that of patent unreasonableness - The court could not conclude that the board's decision was patently unreasonable - See paragraphs 19 to 25.

Labour Law - Topic 7011

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Res judicata or estoppel - [See Contracts - Topic 9911 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 27 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 95 C.L.L.C. 210-009, refd to. [para. 6].

British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 739; 183 N.R. 184, refd to. [para. 6].

United Nurses of Alberta, Local 11 and Thomas v. Misericordia Hospital, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 1; 46 A.R. 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 93 C.L.L.C. 14,022, refd to. [para. 12].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, refd to. [para. 12].

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 3; 196 N.R. 212; 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63; 438 A.P.R. 63; 134 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 13].

University of Alberta Non-Academic Staff Association v. University of Alberta (1997), 205 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 402, refd to. [para. 16].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automo­bile Aerospace and Agricultural Imple­ment Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 93 C.L.L.C. 14,032, refd to. [para. 17].

Brewery Employers Industrial Relations Association v. Western Union of Bever­age, Winery and Distillery Workers, Local 287 (1989), 101 A.R. 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Gandalf Technologies Inc. v. North Ameri­can Trust Co. (1993), 11 B.L.R.(2d) 82 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22].

Dawson v. Cabot (John) (1997) 50th Anni­versary Corp. et al. (1997), 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 241; 490 A.P.R. 241 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

McConnell, Hopkinson, Wilson and Benjamin v. Douglas Aircraft Co. of Canada Ltd. and O'Shea, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 245; 29 N.R. 109; 79 C.L.C. 14,221, refd to. [para. 24].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. University Hospitals Board (1991), 116 A.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Hawco et al. (1996), 191 A.R. 207 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. v. Hambly (1970), 12 D.L.R.(3d) 247 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877), 2 App. Cas. 439 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].

Smoky River Coal Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 7621 et al. (1985), 60 A.R. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Gauvin Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada (1993), 67 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Code, S.A. 1988, c. L-1.2, sect. 114(2) [para. 23].

Counsel:

Murray McGown, Q.C., for the applicant;

David R. Laird, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard before McMahon, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on September 22, 1998.