Manitoba Nurses' Union, Selkirk Nurses Local 16 v. Selkirk and District General Hospital, 2003 MBCA 150

• Judge: Philp, Monnin and Steel, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: November 14, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2003 MBCA 150;(2003), 180 Man.R.(2d) 201 (CA)

Nurses Union v. Selkirk Hospital (2003), 180 Man.R.(2d) 201 (CA);

    310 W.A.C. 201

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.019

Selkirk Nurses Local 16 of the Manitoba Nurses Union (applicant/respondent) v. Selkirk and District General Hospital (respondent/appellant)

(AI 03-30-05562; 2003 MBCA 150)

Indexed As: Manitoba Nurses' Union, Selkirk Nurses Local 16 v. Selkirk and District General Hospital

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Philp, Monnin and Steel, JJ.A.

December 9, 2003.

Summary:

A hospital reclassified Nurse V nurses to Nurse II. Pursuant to art. 2904 of the collective agreement, the reclassified nurses continued to be paid at the same salary level that they had received in the Nurse V category. Article 1901 of the collective agreement provided that Nurse II nurses would be paid additional responsibility pay when they were placed "in charge". The hospital refused to pay the additional responsibility pay to the reclassified nurses when they were placed in charge on the basis that it would constitute a double payment for the same purpose and amount to "pyramiding". The union filed a grievance. An arbitration board denied the grievance (see 69 L.A.C.(4th) 320). The union applied to quash the arbitration board's award.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 167 Man.R.(2d) 271, allowed the application and quashed the board's award. The hospital appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the board's decision was patently unreasonable.

Labour Law - Topic 6632

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Pay or rates of pay - Pyramiding - Two or more payments for same purpose - A hospital reclassified Nurse V nurses to Nurse II - Pursuant to art. 2904 of the collective agreement, the reclassified nurses continued to be paid their Nurse V salary - Article 1901 of the collective agreement provided that Nurse II nurses would be paid additional responsibility pay when they were placed "in charge" - The hospital refused to pay the additional responsibility pay to the reclassified nurses on the basis that it would constitute a double payment for the same purpose and amount to "pyramiding" - An arbitration board denied a grievance - The board concluded that as Nurse V nurses were paid for additional supervisory responsibilities, and that was the same purpose behind the responsibility pay, "pyramiding" would occur if responsibility pay was paid to the reclassified nurses - The union applied for judicial review - A motions judge, applying the standard of reasonableness, quashed the board's decision - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - While the applicable standard of review was patent unreasonableness rather than reasonableness, the board's decision was both unreasonable and patently unreasonable - The purpose of the Nurse V salary paid to the reclassified nurses was to provide transitional protection for nurses reclassified to a lower position and not to compensate for increased responsibility.

Labour Law - Topic 7112

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See Labour Law - Topic 6632 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 1].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 599, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 2].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 3].

Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. (1998), 230 A.R. 114 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 5].

Consumers Packaging Inc. v. Aluminium, Brick and Glassworkers' Union, Local 256 (1991), 115 N.B.R.(2d) 374; 291 A.P.R. 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 6].

Manitoba Nurses' Union, St. Boniface Nurses', Local 5 v. St. Boniface General Hospital (1997), 124 Man.R.(2d) 27 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18. footnote 7].

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. 20, footnote 8].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al. (2003), 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 9].

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. 29, footnote 10].

Counsel:

K.L. Gibson and T.J. Kochanski, for the appellant;

R.K. Deeley, Q.C., and M.H. Toews, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 14, 2003, before Philp, Monnin and Steel, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Philp, J.A., on December 9, 2003.