United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 264 et al. v. Metal Fabricating and Construction Ltd., (1990) 84 Sask.R. 195 (CA)

• Judge: Tallis, Cameron and Vancise, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 22, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1990), 84 Sask.R. 195 (CA)

PPF v. Metal Fabricating and Constr. (1990), 84 Sask.R. 195 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 264, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 529, and Millwrights, Machine Erectors, and Maintenance Union, Local 1021 (applicants/appellants) v. Metal Fabricating and Construction Ltd. (respondent/respondent)

(No. 83)

Indexed As: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 264 et al. v. Metal Fabricating and Construction Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Tallis, Cameron and Vancise, JJ.A.

March 19, 1990.

Summary:

The applicant unions and the respondent employer were subject to three collective agreements negotiated by the unions and the Saskatchewan Construction Labour Relations Council (an employer bargaining agency). All three agreements were to be in effect until April 30, 1984, and each could be terminated on notice. In March 1984, the Saskatchewan Construction Labour Relations Council gave notice of termination of the three agreements. No further agreements were entered into. The unions subsequently filed grievances, alleging violations of their respective collective bargaining rights. The unions argued that under s. 4(c) of the Construction Industry Labour Relations Repeal Act, which came into effect in December 1983, the collective agreements could no longer be terminated on notice, but continued in effect until new collective agreements were negotiated. Thus grievances were possible even after the April 30, 1984, expiry dates. The arbitration board set up to hear all the grievances held that there were no collective agreements in existence and the board lacked jurisdiction to consider the grievances. The unions applied for judicial review to set aside the arbitration board's decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported in 70 Sask.R. 314, dismissed the unions' application, and affirmed that the March 1984 notices terminated the collective agreements and the arbitration board lacked jurisdiction. The court agreed with the board's interpretation of s. 4(c) of the Construction Industry Labour Relations Repeal Act that the section incorporated the express right to terminate the collective agreements as specified in s. 33(4) of the Trade Union Act. The unions appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the grievances to the board of arbitration for determination on the basis that since new agreements had not been concluded, the collective agreements continued in force.

Labour Law - Topic 6426

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Commencement, duration and extension - Termination - By notice - Section 4 of the Construction Industry Labour Relations Repeal Act was a transition provision setting out how long collective agreements negotiated under the Construction Industry Labour Relations Act would remain in effect - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that under s. 4(c) of the Repeal Act collective agreements negotiated by the Saskatchewan Construction Labour Relations Council (an employer bargaining agency) continued in force, notwithstanding the lapse of their expiry dates and the giving of notice to terminate under s. 33 of the Trade Union Act, until new agreements were concluded - See paragraphs 51 to 65.

Statutes - Topic 501

Interpretation - Purpose of legislation - Duty to promote object of statute - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that under the modern approach to statutory construction, the true meaning of an enactment is to be derived by reading the words thereof in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of the legislator - Numerous specific aids exist to discover legislative intention - These aids must be applied with a view to attaining the objects of the statute and its enacting provisions - The objects or purposes of an Act and its parts are frequently seen as the deepest source of assistance in uncovering uncertain intention - See paragraph 42.

Statutes - Topic 502

Interpretation - Intention of legislature - [See Statutes - Topic 501].

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - Ordinary meaning of words - [See Statutes - Topic 501].

Cases Noticed:

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1805 v. Little Borland Ltd. (1986), 48 Sask.R. 291 (Q.B.), not folld. [paras. 6, 27].

Hartnet v. Carpenters Provincial Council of Saskatchewan and Wood-Cogger (Sktn) Ltd. (1984), 35 Sask. Labour Report (No. 8) 47, folld. [para. 17].

Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 236 v. Clark Roofing (1964) Ltd. et al. (1984), 35 Sask. Labour Report (No. 10) 46, folld. [para. 17].

Wentworth Arms Hotel Limited et al. v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local 197, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 846; 24 N.R. 417, dist. [para. 34].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 277; 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. 55].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2399 v. Integ Management and Support Services Ltd. (1988), 58 Sask.R. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. (Canadian Kenworth Company Division) v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14 (1990), 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Construction Industry Labour Relations Act, S.S. 1979, c. C-29.1, generally [para. 2].

Construction Industry Labour Relations Repeal Act, S.S. 1983-84, c. 2, sect. [para. 9]; sect. 4 [paras. 1, 9, 47, 64]; sect. 4(c) [paras. 6, 14-18, 27, 31, 40, 44, 46, 48, 50-51, 53, 57-59, 61, 64]; sect. 4(d) [para. 64].

Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. T-17, generally [paras. 2, 11], sect. 33 [paras. 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 27, 39, 44-47, 51, 64]; sect. 33(4) [para. 37]; sect. 34 [paras. 10, 12-13, 15, 39, 44, 46-47, 64]; sect. 34(1) [para. 37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dreidger, Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed.), p. 87 [para. 42].

Counsel:

R.W. Mitchell, for the appellants;

T. Zarzeczny, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard before Tallis, Cameron and Vancise, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal on March 22, 1989. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Cameron, J.A., on March 19, 1990.