Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 et al., (2015) 333 O.A.C. 177 (DC)

• Judge: Lederman, Sachs and Lederer, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: Friday February 13, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 333 O.A.C. 177 (DC);2015 ONSC 1121

Ont. Refrigeration v. PPF (2015), 333 O.A.C. 177 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.012

The Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (applicant) v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Local 787 and Norm Jesin (respondents)

(198/14; 2015 ONSC 1121)

Indexed As: Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lederman, Sachs and Lederer, JJ.

March 19, 2015.

Summary:

A construction collective agreement between the Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (ORAC) and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 (UA Local 787), expired. Collective bargaining toward a renewal agreement took place. A number of bargaining issues remained unresolved. UA Local 787 requested, under s. 150.4(4) of the Labour Relations Act, that the bargaining issues be settled by mandatory interest arbitration. An Arbitrator was appointed by the Minister of Labour pursuant to s. 150.4(7) of the Act to resolve the outstanding bargaining issues. ORAC contended that the Arbitrator's jurisdiction was restricted by the geographic boundaries outlined in s. 150.1(1) of the Act (the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)). The Arbitrator decided that he was empowered to arbitrate a renewal of the entire agreement on a province-wide bargaining unit. The Arbitrator selected UA Local 787's bargaining position. ORAC applied for judicial review. It did not challenge the Arbitrator's decision to rule in favour of UA Local 787's final offer position. Rather, ORAC challenged the Arbitrator's determination as to the scope of his jurisdiction.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application. The court declared that the award in respect of the non GTA was without legal force and effect and quashed that portion of the award.

Arbitration - Topic 7950

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 6374].

Labour Law - Topic 5

General principles and definitions - General - Right to bargain collectively - [See Labour Law - Topic 6374].

Labour Law - Topic 6374

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Arbitration of terms or interest arbitration - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - A construction collective agreement between the Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (ORAC) and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 (UA Local 787), expired - Collective bargaining toward a renewal agreement took place - A number of bargaining issues remained unresolved - UA Local 787 requested, under s. 150.4(4) of the Labour Relations Act, that the bargaining issues be settled by mandatory interest arbitration - An Arbitrator was appointed by the Minister of Labour pursuant to s. 150.4(7) of the Act to resolve the outstanding bargaining issues - ORAC contended that the Arbitrator's jurisdiction was restricted by the geographic boundaries outlined in s. 150.1(1) of the Act (the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)) - The Arbitrator decided that he was empowered to arbitrate a renewal of the entire agreement on a province-wide bargaining unit - The Arbitrator selected UA Local 787's bargaining position - ORAC applied for judicial review, challenging the Arbitrator's determination as to the scope of his jurisdiction - The Ontario Divisional Court declared that the award in respect of the non GTA was without legal force and effect and quashed that portion of the award - The authority of an Arbitrator appointed pursuant to s. 150.4 of the Act was expressly circumscribed by s. 150.1, which clearly stated that ss. 150.2, 150.3 and 150.4 applied only with respect to the GTA geographic areas - The Arbitrator's power under s. 3 of the Regulation (Arbitration - Residential Sector of the Construction Industry) was restricted by the geographic constraints placed on it by s. 150.1 of the Act - The court stated that "The Act reflects the legislature's decision to provide a historic compromise regarding when unions and employers have the right to strike or lockout. That restriction was directed only at the geographical area of the GTA. The Arbitrator acted contrary to the letter and spirit of the GTA provisions. He improperly expanded his jurisdiction in respect of the non GTA and infringed the parties' statutory rights to freely negotiate terms and conditions of employment and to resort to their rights of strike and lockout in the non GTA" - The Arbitrator's decision was neither correct nor reasonable - See paragraphs 21 to 32.

Labour Law - Topic 7550

Industrial relations - Strikes - Right to strike - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 6374].

Labour Law - Topic 7961

Industrial relations - Lockouts - Right to lockout - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 6374].

Cases Noticed:

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; 334 N.R. 55; 2005 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 24].

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan (2015), 467 N.R. 3; 451 Sask.R. 1; 628 W.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 29].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 31].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (2011), 423 N.R. 284; 2011 FCA 257, refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Arbitration - Residential Sector of the Construction Industry - see Labour Relations Act Regulations (Ont.).

Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, sect. 150.1, sect. 150.2, sect. 150.3, sect. 150.4(1), sect. 150.4(7) [para. 12].

Labour Relations Act Regulations (Ont.), Arbitration - Residential Sector of the Construction Industry, O. Reg. 522/05, sect. 3(1) [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings, April 25, 2000, November 3, 2004 and March 29, 2005 [para. 13].

Hansard (Ontario) - see Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings.

Counsel:

Richard J. Charney, for the applicant, The Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association;

Ronald Lebi and Laurie Kent, for the respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Local 787.

This application was heard on February 13, 2015, before Lederman, Sachs and Lederer, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following judgment of the Divisional Court was delivered by Lederman, J., and was released on March 19, 2015.