SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers,
2010 NSSC 372
Date: 20101026 Docket: Hfx. No. 329879
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Canada Post Corporation
-and-
Canadian Union of Postal Workers
LIBRARY HEADING
Judge: The Honourable Justice Robert W. Wright
Heard: September 13, 2010 in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Written
Decision: October 26, 2010
Subject: Judicial Review of labour arbitration award.
Summary: In April, 2009 Canada Post Corporation refused a request from three regional union officers to attend a forum scheduled to take place at the Dieppe Mail Processing Plant with its local employees. The purpose of the forum was to inform its workforce of the corporation’s direction and to gather information for running the company. The regional union officers considered that they had the right to be present under the “Union Access to Place of Employment” clause in the collective agreement to exercise vigilance of their role as the exclusive bargaining agent for those employees, lest any issues of working conditions arise. They therefore disregarded the refusal and presented themselves at the forum to attend the presentations being made by senior management personnel. Ultimately, the three regional officers were removed after Canada Post called the RCMP to escort them out of the building.
A few days later, Canada Post issued letters to the three individual union officers banning them from entry to all non-public areas of all Canada Post facilities for a period of one year as a consequence of their actions.
The Union subsequently filed a policy grievance alleging violation of the collective agreement, which was denied by Canada Post. Ultimately, the matter proceeded to a grievance arbitration hearing before a consensually appointed arbitrator.
The arbitrator rendered his decision on April 23, 2010 in which he upheld the grievance having found that:
(a) The corporation’s refusal to allow the requested access was a clear violation of Article 3.04(a) and that the bans were accordingly null and void; and
(b) The corporation had no right or authority under the collective agreement to ban the grievors from the workplace (as a result of which the letters imposing the bans were quashed).
Canada Post then applied for judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision alleging that he had made reviewable errors. As well, it alleged a denial of procedural fairness by the arbitrators refusal of its request for an adjournment during the course of the hearing.
Issues:
1. Whether the arbitrator committed reviewable error in his interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the collective agreement;
2. Whether the corporation was denied procedural fairness by the arbitrator’s refusal of its request for an adjournment during the course of the hearing.
Held: Application dismissed. The arbitrator’s award met the standard of review of reasonableness, both in respect of process and outcome. The arbitrator’s path of reasoning was transparent, intelligible and justifiable and his conclusions occupied the range of reasonable outcomes.
As to the adjournment request denied by the arbitrator, the reviewing court does not conduct a standard of review analysis of procedural fairness but rather must make its own assessment of the tribunal’s process. Here, there was no evidence of any material prejudice to the corporation by reason of the refusal of its request for an adjournment, nor could any such prejudice be inferred from the record. Costs were awarded to the Union in the amount of $1,500 plus taxable disbursements.
THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THE COVER SHEET.