National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians v. Tri-Co Broadcasting Ltd., (1984) 16 F.T.R. 164 (TD)

• Judge: Muldoon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 12, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1984), 16 F.T.R. 164 (TD)

NABET v. Tri-Co Broadcasting Ltd. (1984), 16 F.T.R. 164 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (applicant/the union) v. Tri-Co Broadcasting Ltd. (respondent/the employer)

(T-256-84)

Indexed As: National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians v. Tri-Co Broadcasting Ltd.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Muldoon, J.

December 21, 1984.

Summary:

In a dispute under a collective agreement an arbitrator ruled that the defendant employer lacked authority to create the position of "operations manager" without approval of the Canada Labour Relations Board. The employer's program director used the title "operations director". The union applied to have the employer show cause why it should not be found guilty of contempt for failure to comply with the arbitration award.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

(This 1984 decision is being reported at this time at the request of one of our readers).

Contempt - Topic 684

What constitutes - Judgments and orders - Disobedience of - Arbitration award - An arbitrator ruled that an employer lacked authority to create the position of "operations manager" without approval of the Canada Labour Relations Board - The employer's program director used the title "operations director" - The union applied to have the employer show cause why it should not be found guilty of contempt for failure to comply with the arbitrator's award - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application where there was no proof that the employer actually created the position of "operations director" and hence no breach of the award - The court held however that the employer's behaviour was negligent or provocative enough to deny the employer costs.

Practice - Topic 7021

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement - Successful party - Exceptions - Conduct - [See Contempt - Topic 684 above].

Counsel:

S. Waller, for the applicant;

D. Proctor, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan, Power, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Pitblado & Hoskin, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on June 12, 1984, before Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on December 21, 1984: