Vale Inco Newfoundland and Labrador Ltd. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, USW et al.

• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Judge: Dymond, J.
• Citation: (2010), 299 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73 (NLTD(G))
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Date: 09 July 2010

Vale Inco v. USWA (2010), 299 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73 (NLTD(G));

    926 A.P.R. 73

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JL.012

Vale Inco Newfoundland and Labrador Limited (plaintiff) v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, USW (first defendant) and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, USW Local 9508 (second defendant) and Darren Cove (third defendant) and Boyd Bussey (fourth defendant)

(200901T4113; 2010 NLTD(G) 124)

Indexed As: Vale Inco Newfoundland and Labrador Ltd. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, USW et al.

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (General)

Dymond, J.

July 9, 2010.

Summary:

During a labour dispute, unionized employees not on strike were allegedly directed by their union local to refuse to work by falsely alleging unsafe working conditions. The work refusal lasted one day before they were ordered back to work. The employees worked for contractors providing services to a mine. The mine owner, not a party to their collective agreements, sued the national and local unions and others for damages for economic loss caused by the intentional interference with the owner's economic and contractual relations with its contractors. The owner alleged that the work refusal lacked reasonable grounds (Occupational Health and Safety Act) and constituted an illegal strike (Labour Relations Act). The unions applied under rule 10.05(1)(a) to strike the statement of claim for want of jurisdiction. The unions challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the owner's remedy was to file a complaint with the Labour Relations Board under s. 18.1(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act (re illegal walkout). The owner invoked the court's jurisdiction over intentional torts.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the unions' application. The owner was not bound by any of the collective agreements with the unions and the wording of s. 18.1(1)(d) was not sufficiently clear to explicitly or implicitly oust the court's inherent jurisdiction over intentional torts.

Labour Law - Topic 2446

Unions - Liability of unions - Torts and civil responsibility - Respecting illegal strikes - [See Labour Law - Topic 7205 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7205

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - During a labour dispute, unionized employees not on strike were allegedly directed by their union local to refuse to work by falsely alleging unsafe working conditions - The work refusal lasted one day before they were ordered back to work - The employees worked for contractors providing services to a mine - The mine owner, not a party to their collective agreements, sued the national and local unions and others for damages for economic loss caused by the intentional interference with the owner's economic and contractual relations with its contractors - The owner alleged that the work refusal lacked reasonable grounds (Occupational Health and Safety Act) and constituted an illegal strike (Labour Relations Act) - The unions applied under rule 10.05(1)(a) to strike the statement of claim for want of jurisdiction - The unions challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the owner's remedy was to file a complaint with the Labour Relations Board under s. 18.1(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act (re illegal walkout) - The owner invoked the court's jurisdiction over intentional torts - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the unions' application - The owner was not bound by any of the collective agreements and the wording of s. 18.1(1)(d) was not sufficiently clear to explicitly or implicitly oust the court's inherent jurisdiction over intentional torts - The court noted that s. 18.1(1)(d) empowered the Board to investigate an illegal walkout and order the employees back to work - However, where a third party, not bound by the collective agreement, claimed damages for its economic loss, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant such a remedy - Had the Legislature intended to bar such damage claims, it should have clearly said so.

Cases Noticed:

Adams v. Cusack et al. (2006), 242 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 770 A.P.R. 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219 (1986), 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236; 1986 CanLII 71 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81; 1990 CanLII 110, refd to. [para. 31].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro (1995), 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Comstock (Quebec) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740 (1975), 8 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 199; 8 A.P.R. 199 (Nfld. S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

M. & M. Engineering Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2330 (2004), 237 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 81; 703 A.P.R. 81 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina (2000), 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 144; 807 A.P.R. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Moldowan v. Saskatchewan Government Employees Union et al. (1995), 134 Sask.R. 210; 101 W.A.C. 210; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 289 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1996), 204 N.R. 71; 144 Sask.R. 240; 124 W.A.C. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Therien, [1960] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 46].

Ex Parte Island Records Ltd., [1978] 1 Ch. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. L-1, sect. 18.1(1)(d) [para. 28]; sect. 86(1) [para. 20].

Counsel:

James L. Thistle, for the plaintiff;

Raymond F. Larkin, Q.C., for the defendants.

This application was heard at St. John's, Nfld. and Lab., before Dymond, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), who delivered the following judgment on July 9, 2010.