Sisters of St. Joseph v. Service Employees Union, Local 210, (1997) 102 O.A.C. 192 (CA)

• Judge: McKinlay, Catzman and Labrosse, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: July 29, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 102 O.A.C. 192 (CA)

Sisters of St. Joseph v. SEU (1997), 102 O.A.C. 192 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.A.C. TBEd. AU010

The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London in Ontario, operating St. Joseph's Hospital, Chatham (applicant/respondent) v. Service Employees Union, Local 210, R.H. McLaren, R.E. Burnell, Q.C., R.W. Stewart and Julie Sasseville (respondents/appellant Service Employees Union, Local 210)

(C14499)

Indexed As: Sisters of St. Joseph v. Service Employees Union, Local 210

Ontario Court of Appeal

McKinlay, Catzman and Labrosse, JJ.A.

July 29, 1997.

Summary:

A hospital decided to fill a vacant operat­ing room technician position with a regis­tered nurse, precluding registered nursing assistants from the position. The union representing the registered nursing assistants grieved. The majority of an arbitration board upheld the grievance after discounting the hospital's reasons for upgrading the position. The hospital applied under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to review the board's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a judg­ment reported 52 O.A.C. 353, allowed the application, set aside the award and dis­missed the grievance. The board exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing the hospital's man­agement decision, which it had no right to do. The union appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 9625

Public service labour relations - Collective agreements - Management rights - Work assignments and job classifications - A hospital decided to limit the position of operating room technician to registered nurses - The union representing registered nursing assistants, who were previously eligible for the position, grieved - An arbitration board upheld the grievance where the hospital lacked "cogent" and "convincing" reasons for the decision - The collective agreement provided no right to review management decisions - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that absent bad faith, which was not alleged, the board had no right to substitute its management decision for that of the hos­pital - The board exceeded its jurisdiction by amending the collective agreement to require "cogent" and "convincing" reasons for management decisions - Alternatively, if the board acted within its jurisdiction, its decision was patently unreasonable.

Cases Noticed:

Pilkington Brothers v. United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America (1976), 13 L.A.C.(2d) 287, refd to. [para. 10].

Metropolitan Toronto Police Association v. Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police (1981), 42 N.R. 272; 33 O.R.(2d) 476 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Stelco Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005 et al. (1994), 69 O.A.C. 172 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Howard Goldblatt, for the appellant;

Linda Rothstein, for the respondent, Julie Sasseville;

James Hassell and David Bannon, for the respondents, The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London in Ontario, oper­ating St. Joseph's Hospital, Chatham.

This appeal was heard on March 24-25, 1997, before McKinlay, Catzman and Labrosse, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On July 29, 1997, the following judgment was endorsed on the appeal record by the court.