International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local D331 v. Lafarge Canada Inc., (1999) 250 A.R. 125 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: December 14, 1999
• Citations: (1999), 250 A.R. 125 (CA)

IBB v. Lafarge Can. Inc. (1999), 250 A.R. 125 (CA);

    213 W.A.C. 125

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. DE.099

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

(98-18006)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté and Fruman, JJ.A., and LoVecchio, J.(ad hoc)

December 14, 1999.

Summary:

An employer locked out its unionized workers for some time. Then the two sides held a negotiating session, which resulted in signing and ratifying a written collective agreement. Some time later the union grieved, complaining that the company was keeping for itself certain unemployment insurance premium reductions. A tripartite arbitration board heard the matter about four years after the bargaining session which resulted in the collective agreement. Over the opposition of the union, the arbitrators heard extensive evidence about what was said during the bargaining sessions. Almost all that evidence was oral. The arbitrators gave preliminary written reasons for admit­ting that evidence. After they had heard it, they gave longer reasons dismissing the grievance. The union applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 231 A.R. 309, allowed the application. The employer appealed, arguing that the arbitrators should not have heard the evidence of dis­cussions during the bargain­ing sessions.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 7143

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Grievances - Evidence and proof - An employer locked out its unionized workers - The two sides held a negotiating session which resulted in a collective agreement - Subsequently the union filed a grievance - An arbitration board heard the matter about four years after the initial bargaining session - Over the union's opposition, the arbitrators heard extensive evidence about what was said during the bargaining sessions and ulti­mately dismissed the grievance - The union applied for judicial review, arguing that the arbitrators should not have heard the evidence of discussions during the bargaining sessions - The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that the evidence should not have been considered having regard to two clauses in the collec­tive agreement which removed the arbitra­tors' jurisdiction to hear such evidence.

Counsel:

D.R. Laird, Q.C., for the appellant;

M.D. McGown, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Côté and Fruman, JJ.A., and LoVecchio, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court on December 14, 1999.