United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CLC, Local 1000A v. Kretschmar Inc. et al., (1996) 90 O.A.C. 119 (DC)

• Judge: O'Leary, Dunnet and Borins, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: April 11, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 90 O.A.C. 119 (DC)

UFCW v. Kretschmar Inc. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 119 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CLC, Local 1000A (applicant) v. Kretschmar Inc. and S.L. Stewart (respondent)

(177/95)

Indexed As: United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CLC, Local 1000A v. Kretschmar Inc. et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

O'Leary, Dunnet and Borins, JJ.

April 18, 1996.

Summary:

An employee filed a grievance claiming that she had been improperly denied pay­ment of weekly indemnity benefits. An arbi­trator con­cluded that the griev­or's claim should be made against the insurer and that she lacked juris­diction under the collec­tive agreement to determine the merits of the dispute. The employee applied for judicial review of the arbitrator's deci­sion.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Borins, J., dissenting, dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 6526

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Grievances - When employer or employee entitled to file a grievance - [See Labour Law - Topic 7038 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6690.2

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Supplementary benefits - Insurance and health benefits - [See Labour Law - Topic 7038 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7003

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Mandatory dispute set­tlement process - Where applicable - [See Labour Law - Topic 7038 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7038

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Matters not arbitrable - Article 9.03 of a collective agreement pro­vided that the company had no obligation "by reason of the [insurance] programme except ... to endeavour to obtain its cover­ages and to fulfil any obli­gations specifi­cally required in this article 9 or in the programme" - Article 9.04 provided that "[d]isputes ... between par­ticipants and the insurance companies ... shall be subject to ... arbitration" - The union contended that the employer was obliged to ensure that the insur­ance policy provided for the settlement of disputes between an employee and the insurer through the grievance procedure in the collective agreement - An arbitrator con­cluded that the articles were inconsistent and article 9.04 was not enforceable - Accordingly, she ruled that a grievor's claim concerning payment of indemnity benefits should be made against the insurer and that she lacked juris­diction - The Ontario Divi­sional Court held that the arbitrator's deci­sion was reasonable.

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Serv­ice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

P.J.J. Cavalluzzo, for the applicant;

D.I. Wakely, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 11, 1996, before O'Leary, Dunnet and Borins, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the court was delivered orally and was released on April 18, 1996, includ­ing the following opinions:

O'Leary, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 8, 16;

Borins, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 9 to 14;

Dunnet, J. - see paragraph 15.