Muskrat Falls Employers' Association Inc. v. Resource Development Trades Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, (2015) 373 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 302 (NLTD(G))

• Judge: Orsborn, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: October 26, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 373 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 302 (NLTD(G))

Muskrat Falls v. Resource Dev. (2015), 373 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 302 (NLTD(G));

    1161 A.P.R. 302

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. NO.003

Muskrat Falls Employers' Association Inc. (applicant) v. Resource Development Trades Council of Newfoundland and Labrador (respondent)

(201501G3086; 2015 NLTD(G) 150)

Indexed As: Muskrat Falls Employers' Association Inc. v. Resource Development Trades Council of Newfoundland and Labrador

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (General)

Orsborn, J.

October 30, 2015.

Summary:

The employer provided security services on a large construction project. Each crew was supervised by an assistant crew chief. The employer had never hired a crew chief, but used a non-bargaining unit security manager. The union grieved, asserting that, given the number of assistant crew chiefs, the employer was required to hire a crew chief who was a bargaining unit member. Under the collective agreement, the "average ratio" of assistant crew chiefs to crew chief was to be 3:1. At issue was whether the number of crew chiefs was determined by the number of assistant crew chiefs on any given shift (the employer's position) or by the number of assistant crew chiefs in the employer's work force as a whole (the union's position). The arbitrator agreed with the union. The employer sought judicial review, asserting that the decision was unreasonable due to a lack of reasons.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the application.

Arbitration - Topic 5578

The award - Arriving at an award - Reasons for decision - Effect of lack of - The employer provided security services on a large construction project - Each crew was supervised by an assistant crew chief - The employer had never hired a crew chief, but used a non-bargaining unit security manager - The union grieved, asserting that, given the number of assistant crew chiefs, the employer was required to hire a crew chief who was a bargaining unit member - Under the collective agreement, the "average ratio" of assistant crew chiefs to crew chief was to be 3:1 - At issue was whether the number of crew chiefs was determined by the number of assistant crew chiefs on any given shift (the employer's position) or by the number of assistant crew chiefs in the employer's work force as a whole (the union's position) - The arbitrator agreed with the union - The employer sought judicial review, asserting that the decision was unreasonable due to a lack of reasons - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the application - The reasons were non-existent - However, in the labour relations context, an arbitrator's reasons had "little role to play in assessing a decision for reasonableness" - If a labour arbitrator understood and answered the question raised by a grievance and the outcome could be considered reasonable following the court's consideration of any available train of analysis, then, in order to respect the need for the expeditious resolution of grievances, the court had to defer to the arbitrator's decision - The arbitrator here was clearly alive to the issue - The decision's outcome was reasonable and was consistent with a reasonable purpose underlying the provision in the collective agreement - See paragraphs 15 to 59.

Labour Law - Topic 7112

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See Arbitration - Topic 5578 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7118

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Judicial deference to arbitration process - [See Arbitration - Topic 5578 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 15].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 15].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 15].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2010), 294 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161; 908 A.P.R. 161; 2010 NLCA 13, affd. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 15].

Counsel:

Stephanie Sheppard, for the applicant;

Dana Lenehan, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard at St. John's, N.L., on October 26, 2015, by Orsborn, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), who delivered the following reasons for judgment on October 30, 2015.