Zvaigzne v. Inco Ltd. and/or International Nickel Co. and/or Inco Metals Co., (1984) 3 O.A.C. 236 (CA)

• Judge: Lacourcière, Zuber and Blair, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 16, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 3 O.A.C. 236 (CA)

Zvaigzne v. Inco Ltd. (1984), 3 O.A.C. 236 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Zvaigzne v. Inco Ltd. and/or International Nickel Co. Ltd. and/or Inco Metals Company

Indexed As: Zvaigzne v. Inco Ltd. and/or International Nickel Co. and/or Inco Metals Co.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Lacourcière, Zuber and Blair, JJ.A.

April 5, 1984.

Summary:

An apprentice was laid off because of a work force reduction during a strike. The apprentice sued his employer for damages for breach of his contract of apprenticeship. The Ontario High Court, in a decision unreported in this series of reports, dismissed the apprentice's action. The apprentice appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the apprentice was subject to an employees' collective agreement, which provided for such lay-offs, and which precluded the apprentice from any recourse other than the grievance procedure.

Labour Law - Topic 6402

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Effect of - On employer-employee contract and availability of court action - An apprentice was laid off because of a work force reduction - The apprentice claimed that his employer breached his apprenticeship contract - The Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act was silent on the question of lay-offs - The apprentice was, however, bound as an employee by a collective agreement, which permitted the lay-off - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that there was no breach of contract - See paragraphs 5 to 7.

Labour Law - Topic 6402

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Effect of - On employer-employee contract and availability of court action - An apprentice bound by a collective agreement was laid off because of a work force reduction - He sued for damages for breach of his contract of apprenticeship, plus filed an unsuccessful grievance - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the apprentice's only remedy was the grievance procedure - See paragraphs 5 to 7.

Cases Noticed:

Ainscough et al. v. McGavin Toastmaster Ltd. (1975), 4 N.R. 618; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Apprenticeship and Trademen's Qualification Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 24, sect. 13, sect. 17(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Adrian Hill, for the appellant;

Brenda Bowlby, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lacourcière, Zuber and Blair, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 16, 1984. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Lacourcière, J.A., and released on April 5, 1984.