Telecommunications Workers Union Local 202 v. MacMillan et al., 2008 ABPC 38

• Judge: LeGrandeur, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 21, 2007
• Citations: 2008 ABPC 38;(2008), 438 A.R. 280 (PC)

TWU v. MacMillan (2008), 438 A.R. 280 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. FE.144

Telecommunications Workers Union Local 202 (plaintiff/respondent) v. Wayne MacMillan, Robert (Bob) Pinchak and Cody Gejdos (defendants/applicants)

(0602600312; 0602600313; 0602600314; 2008 ABPC 38)

Indexed As: Telecommunications Workers Union Local 202 v. MacMillan et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

LeGrandeur, P.C.J.

February 1, 2008.

Summary:

The plaintiff union instituted disciplinary proceedings against three members (the defendants). They were found guilty and fines were imposed. The union constitution provided that if the fines were not paid in the stipulated time (they were not), the members were suspended. The union sought a monetary judgment against each of the defendants in the amount of the fine. The defendants applied to dismiss the claim.

The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application.

Courts - Topic 2282

Jurisdiction - Bars - Statutory bars - The plaintiff union instituted disciplinary proceedings against three members (the defendants) - They were found guilty and fines were imposed - The union constitution provided that if the fines were not paid in the stipulated time (they were not), the members were suspended - The union sought a monetary judgment against each of the defendants in the amount of the fine - The defendants applied to dismiss the claim - At issue was whether the enforcement of penalties in the courts by the union was prohibited by ss. 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Act - The Alberta Provincial Court held that it was not barred from hearing the claim - Section 5(2) of the Act provided that the Act did not apply to any trade union not registered under the Act - These words displayed no ambiguity and were not capable of any meaning other than that the Act did not apply to any trade union not registered thereunder - The plaintiff union was not registered under the Act - Earlier decisions that found that it was not the intention of Parliament to allow unions to circumvent s. 4 by simply not registering were either wrongly decided or distinguishable - See paragraphs 11 to 20.

Courts - Topic 8405

Provincial courts - Alberta - Provincial Court - Jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 2282 ].

Courts - Topic 8405

Provincial courts - Alberta - Provincial Court - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff union instituted disciplinary proceedings against three members (the defendants) - They were found guilty and fines were imposed - The union constitution provided that if the fines were not paid in the stipulated time (they were not), the members were suspended - The union sought a monetary judgment against each of the defendants in the amount of the fine - The defendants applied to dismiss the claim - The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application - The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the fines were enforceable debts - The fines were penalties imposed on the defendants as a consequence of their misconduct - The court was being asked to confirm the fine and, thereby, confirm the discipline imposed by the union through its internal procedure - The court had no jurisdiction to discipline union members for an apparent breach of the union constitution - The plaintiff's claim was not a debt nor actionable as a debt - See paragraphs 23 to 28.

Courts - Topic 8405

Provincial courts - Alberta - Provincial Court - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff union instituted disciplinary proceedings against three members (the defendants) - They were found guilty and fines were imposed - The union constitution provided that if the fines were not paid in the stipulated time (they were not), the members were suspended - The union sought a monetary judgment against each of the defendants in the amount of the fine - The defendants applied to dismiss the claim - The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application - The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the fines were in the nature of a damage and therefore enforceable in the court - The fines represented a penalty for disciplinary purposes, not damages in either contract, tort or equity - They did not relate in any way to compensation of the union for damages suffered as a result of the defendants' conduct - No loss was asserted - This was simply an action seeking to give the authority of law to the internal discipline process imposed by the union - The pleadings demonstrated no independent actionable wrong over and above the principal breach of contract alleged - The plaintiff did not allege any facts supporting any independent actionable wrong - No cause of action was shown - Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim could not stand - See paragraphs 29 to 46.

Creditors and Debtors - Topic 8

General - Debt defined - [See second Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Damages - Topic 2

General principles - Definitions - What constitutes "damages" - [See third Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Labour Law - Topic 2375

Unions - Discipline of members - Penalties - Enforcement - The plaintiff union instituted disciplinary proceedings against three members (the defendants) - They were found guilty and fines were imposed - The union constitution provided that if the fines were not paid in the stipulated time (they were not), the members were suspended - The union sought a monetary judgment against each of the defendants in the amount of the fine - The defendants applied to dismiss the claim - The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application - Regarding the contractual limitation of disciplinary remedies, the court concluded that the union was limited to the disciplinary remedies specified in the constitution and bylaws - Given that the action before the court sought to enforce disciplinary action by imposition of a remedy outside of the contractual framework, the union was precluded from advancing the action - It was limited to the process established by its own constitution - As the union had exhausted its remedies as against the defendants, it could not seek to impose any other consequence on them as a disciplinary action - Such an action as the one before the court was not authorized nor contemplated by the terms of the contract between the parties - See paragraphs 47 to 57.

Labour Law - Topic 2375

Unions - Discipline of members - Penalties - Enforcement - [See second and third Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Cases Noticed:

Berry et al. v. Pulley et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 493; 287 N.R. 303; 158 O.A.C. 329, consd. [para. 5].

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Perks, Grandy and Hearn (1986), 62 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 69; 190 A.P.R. 69 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 14].

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Litke (1998), 133 Man.R.(2d) 146 (Q.B.), affd. (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 266; 202 W.A.C. 266 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 14].

Bonsar v. Musicians Union, [1956] A.C. 104 (H.L.), dist. [para. 14].

Maritime Employers' Association et al. v. International Longshoremen's Association, Local 273 et al. (1979), 23 N.R. 386; 23 N.B.R.(2d) 458; 44 A.P.R. 458; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Drake et al., [1996] N.J. No. 170 (Prov. Ct., Small Claims Ct.), affd. (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 330; 626 A.P.R. 330 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Birch et al. v. Union of Taxation Employees Local 70030, [2007] O.T.C. Uned. L19 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 36].

Marshall v. Watson Wyatt & Co. (2002), 155 O.A.C. 103; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 411 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Desimone v. Herrmann Group Ltd. (1990), 2 W.D.C.P. 384, refd to. [para. 46].

Taylor v. Pilot Insurance Co. (1990), 75 D.L.R.(4th) 370 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 46].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McCamus, John D., The Law of Contracts (2005), p. 886 [para. 43].

Pitch, Harvin D., and Snyder, Ronald M., Damages for Breach of Contract (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 4-52 [para. 44].

Counsel:

David J. Corry, for the defendants/applicants;

W.J. Johnson, for the plaintiff/respondent.

This application was heard on August 21, 2007, at Lethbridge, Alberta, by LeGrandeur, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 1, 2008.