Sisters of St. Joseph v. Service Employees Union, Local 210, (1992) 52 O.A.C. 353 (DC)

• Judge: O'Brien, Rosenberg and Austin, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 13, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 52 O.A.C. 353 (DC)

Sisters of St. Joseph v. SEU (1992), 52 O.A.C. 353 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an Application for Judicial Review pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 224;

And In The Matter Of an Award dated December 31, 1990, issued by the majority of a Board of Arbitration appointed pursuant to a collective agreement between St. Joseph's Hospital, Chatham and the Service Employees Union, Local 210.

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

(289/91)

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

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

O'Brien, Rosenberg and Austin, JJ.

February 13, 1992.

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 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.

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 - The collective agreement provided no right to review management decisions - The Ontario Divisional Court held that absent bad faith, discrimination or unfairness, none of which was alleged, the board had no right to review the reasons for a man­agement decision and exceeded its juris­diction by doing so.

Cases Noticed:

Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commis­sioners of Police and Metropolitan Toronto Police Association et al., Re (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 476 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Council of Printing Industries of Canada and Toronto Printing Pressmen and As­sistants' Union No. 10 et al., Re (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 404 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Pub­lic Employees et al. (1990), 39 O.A.C. 82; 74 O.R.(2d) 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pilkington Brothers Canada Ltd., Re (1976), 13 L.A.C.(2d) 286, refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 224.

Counsel:

James Hassell and David Mombourquette, for the applicant;

James K. McDonald and Margaret Leigh­ton, for the respondent, Service Employees Union, Local 210;

Ian Scott, Q.C., and Chris Dassios, for the respondent, Julie Sasseville.

This application was heard on December 19, 1991, before O'Brien, Rosenberg and Austin, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The judgment of the Divisional Court was released on February 13, 1992, and the following opinions were filed:

Austin, J. (O'Brien, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 30;

Rosenberg, J. - see paragraphs 31 to 57.