Westfair Foods Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 et al., 2005 SKQB 188

• Judge: Allbright, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 20, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2005 SKQB 188;(2005), 278 Sask.R. 295 (QB)

Westfair Foods Ltd. v. UFCW (2005), 278 Sask.R. 295 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.005

Westfair Foods Ltd. (applicant) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400, and an Arbitration Board chaired by Kurt Wetzel (respondents)

(2004 Q.B. 2142; 2005 SKQB 188)

Indexed As: Westfair Foods Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Allbright, J.

April 20, 2005.

Summary:

Westfair Foods Ltd. operated grocery stores throughout Saskatchewan. The union filed a grievance alleging that Westfair was breaching article 15.13 of the collective agreement by appointing more than one assistant supervisor per department in its stores. An arbitration board allowed the grievance. Westfair applied for judicial review of the arbitration board's award.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Estoppel - Topic 1327

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acquiescence - Standing by without objection - [See Labour Law - Topic 6406 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6406

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Admission of extrinsic evidence - Since 1983, Westfair Foods Ltd. had hired more than one assistant supervisor in some departments in its stores and the union had not objected - In 2001, the union notified Westfair that, from that time forward, it would enforce the strict terms of the collective agreements and it would not be bound by any past practices, acquiescences, agreements or understandings - The union filed a grievance, alleging that Westfair breached article 15.13 of the collective agreement by appointing more than one assistant supervisor per department - An arbitration board allowed the grievance, holding that: (a) article 15.13 was unambiguous and extrinsic evidence regarding past practice was not admissible to aid in its interpretation; (b) the union's interpretation of article 15.13 as allowing a single assistant supervisor per department was reasonable; and (c) the union was not estopped from demanding compliance with article 15.13 based on past practice - Westfair applied for judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The arbitration board's decision that extrinsic evidence was not admissible to interpret article 15.13 and its interpretation of article 15.13 were not unreasonable - The board's articulation of the doctrine of estoppel was correct and its decision that the union was not estopped from demanding compliance with article 15.13 was not unreasonable.

Labour Law - Topic 6408

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Past practice - [See Labour Law - Topic 6406 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6413

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Application of doctrine estoppel - [See Labour Law - Topic 6406 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7112

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Scope of review - An employer applied for judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that the employer had breached an article of the collective agreement - The application also raised issues with respect to whether the arbitration board erred by misinterpreting the common law principle of estoppel or by failing to apply the principle correctly on the facts of the case - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that interpretation of the collective agreement amounted to a question of law that involved the arbitration board's expertise and the reasonableness standard of review was to be applied - Further, while the articulation of the legal principle of estoppel attracted a correctness standard of review, the application of findings of fact to that standard required the application of the standard of reasonableness - See paragraphs 14 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 15].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 15].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 321 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 15].

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 342P-2 v. Dawn Food Products (Canada) Ltd. et al. (2005), 259 Sask.R. 49; 2005 SKQB 11, refd to. [para. 18].

University of Saskatchewan v. University Employees' Union, Local 1975 (2004), 251 Sask.R. 27; 2004 SKQB 286, refd to. [para. 21].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction and General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Beatty, David M., Canadian Labour Arbitration (3rd Ed. 1988) (2003 Looseleaf Update), pp. 5, 6, 7 [para. 25]; para. 2:2200 [para. 39]; 3:4400 [para. 25].

Counsel:

L.F. Seiferling, Q.C., for the applicant;

R.M. Gillies, for the respondent, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400.

This application was heard before Allbright, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on April 20, 2005.