Date: 19981016
Docket: T-1882-98
| IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADA LABOUR CODE, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, as amended, |
| AND IN THE MATTER SUMMARY DISPOSITION 17-98 ISSUED BY RONALD S. KERAS, JOB ARBITRATOR, DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 |
BETWEEN:
BRITISH COLUMBIA MARITIME
EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION,
Applicant,
- and -
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION (CANADIAN AREA),
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] T-1704-98, T-1686-98 and T-1716-98 all came before me at Vancouver along with this particular application in T-1882-98. The Association and the Union are parties to various arbitrations involving the implementation of staggered coffee breaks by the Association and its member employers. Following the implementation of staggered coffee breaks by the Association, a number of issues were referred to a job arbitrator in accordance with the collective agreement between the parties. These arbitrations were conducted on an expedited basis and the decisions are referred to as summary dispositions and they were rendered on the following dates: a) summary disposition 13-98 dated August 10, 1998, b) summary disposition 14-98 dated August 12, 1998, c) summary disposition 15-98 dated August 14, 1998, and d) summary disposition 17-98 dated September 10, 1998 with the subject matter of file T-1882-98.
[2] All of the summary dispositions of the arbitrator were filed in the Federal Court pursuant to Rule 424(1) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, which provides as follows:
| |
"Where under an Act of Parliament the Court is authorized to enforce an Order of a tribunal and no other procedure is required by or under that Act, the Order may be enforced under this part." |
|
[3] The arbitrator's decisions were then filed with the Court pursuant to section 66(2) of the Canada Labour Code R.S.C. 1985, which provides as follows:
| |
"On filing an order or decision of an arbitrator or arbitration board in the Federal Court under subsection (1), the order or decision shall be registered in the Court and, when registered, has the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken thereon, as if the order or decision were a judgment obtained in the Court." |
|
[4] The International Longshore and Warehouse Union brought similar applications before this Court in all files and they are as follows. The Motions are "a) Summary disposition 17-98 of the arbitrator is not filed in accordance with the Federal Court Rules or pursuant to an Act of Parliament and that the summary disposition 17-98 be removed from the Court file; and b) A declaration that the summary disposition 17-98 may not be enforced under part 12 of the Federal Court Rules."
[5] Counsel lead me through a number of decisions by both this Court and Superior Courts of Provinces in which it was determined that the enforcement of certain orders gave rise to determinations that they could not be enforced because of vagueness, conflicting interpretation and imprecision; as a result the Courts were unable to enforce the orders.
[6] The Court does not take issue that arbitrator's orders require precision; in some circumstances they could lead to severe penalties or even contempt of Court proceedings.
[7] Nevertheless, the main issue that has to be determined on this application is not the enforcement of the orders but that the Court should reject the filing the arbitrator's decisions which have been submitted pursuant to section 66(2) of the Canada Labour Code. No argument was advanced to indicate that there was some irregularity in their filings pursuant to the Canada Labour Code or that the Court should reject them because they failed to comply with Rule 424(1) of the Federal Court Rules. There does not appear to be any pre-condition or further compliance required in order to receive the orders in this Court. The enforcement is another matter entirely.
[8] There are no express provisions either under the Canada Labour Code or the Federal Court Rules that the Court should be interceding at this stage of the proceedings; there is no express remedy either under the Canada Labour Code or the Federal Court Rules allowing for this relief. This Court cannot be expected to make a determination without a specific factual situation being brought for determination.
[9] I find that this application is premature and should be dismissed.
[10] The above reasons also apply to the applications brought in file numbers T-1704-98, T-1686-98 and T-1716-98.
(Sgd.) "P. Rouleau"
Judge
Vancouver, British Columbia
October 16, 1998
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
HEARING DATED: October 8, 1998
COURT NO.: T-1882-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: BRITISH COLUMBIA MARITIME
EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION
v.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION (CANADIAN AREA)
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU, J.
dated October 16, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Patrick Gilligan-Hackett for Applicant
Ms. Leah Terai for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Alexander, Holburn, Beaudlin
& Lang
Vancouver, BC for Applicant
Laughton & Company
Vancouver, BC for Respondent
Email this Content