Stevedores incite shutdown
One thing that enlivens law reports is how judges give the dictionary a run for its money. Recently, Newfoundland’s highest court was called upon to decide exactly what labour law means by “lockout.”
And the court’s answer was rather unusual.
What makes the case a brainteaser is that there are two separate unions involved, with the same employer, Abitibi Consolidated.
The stevedores at Abitibi’s port in Botwood, Nfld., stopped work, complaining that there weren’t enough of them to load newsprint on a certain ship. Abitibi obtained a court judgment ordering the stevedores back to work, but they disobeyed the order.
So, Abitibi shut down operations, explaining in a memo: “We have an illegal work stoppage at the port of Botwood. It appears the employees have no intention of returning to work. As a result of their action we cannot ship our paper. This is forcing an emergency shutdown of the mill.”
The shutdown affected support workers at Abitibi’s paper mill in Grand Falls. So the “stoppage” had spread through the operations. The mill employees filed a grievance, complaining that Abitibi had imposed an illegal lockout on them. The arbitrator said they were right.
The mill workers’ local and Abitibi agreed that, as there was no definition of “lockout” in the mill local’s collective agreement with Abitibi, the definition in the province’s Labour Relations Act applied:
“‘Lockout’ includes the closing of a place of employment, a suspension of work or a refusal by an employer to continue to employ a number of his or her employees, done to compel his or her employees or to help another employer to compel that employer’s employees, to agree to terms or conditions of employment.”
Definition applied to all sites
However, the arbitrator did not accept Abitibi’s argument that this definition applied only to the mill local, and that none of its members was closed out to compel compliance with conditions of employment.
The definition applied to all employees, such that it included the compulsion directed against the stevedores, which had a side-effect (being shut down) on the mill workers.
The Newfoundland Court of Appeal has affirmed this view, noting that there was no “emergency economic” reason for Abitibi to shut down operations. Abitibi had alternative ways to those at Botwood for loading its newsprint for shipping.
For more information:
• C.E.P.U. Loc. 63 v. Abitibi Consolidated Inc., 2000 NFCA 28, docket no. 99/41, May 12/00.
And the court’s answer was rather unusual.
What makes the case a brainteaser is that there are two separate unions involved, with the same employer, Abitibi Consolidated.
The stevedores at Abitibi’s port in Botwood, Nfld., stopped work, complaining that there weren’t enough of them to load newsprint on a certain ship. Abitibi obtained a court judgment ordering the stevedores back to work, but they disobeyed the order.
So, Abitibi shut down operations, explaining in a memo: “We have an illegal work stoppage at the port of Botwood. It appears the employees have no intention of returning to work. As a result of their action we cannot ship our paper. This is forcing an emergency shutdown of the mill.”
The shutdown affected support workers at Abitibi’s paper mill in Grand Falls. So the “stoppage” had spread through the operations. The mill employees filed a grievance, complaining that Abitibi had imposed an illegal lockout on them. The arbitrator said they were right.
The mill workers’ local and Abitibi agreed that, as there was no definition of “lockout” in the mill local’s collective agreement with Abitibi, the definition in the province’s Labour Relations Act applied:
“‘Lockout’ includes the closing of a place of employment, a suspension of work or a refusal by an employer to continue to employ a number of his or her employees, done to compel his or her employees or to help another employer to compel that employer’s employees, to agree to terms or conditions of employment.”
Definition applied to all sites
However, the arbitrator did not accept Abitibi’s argument that this definition applied only to the mill local, and that none of its members was closed out to compel compliance with conditions of employment.
The definition applied to all employees, such that it included the compulsion directed against the stevedores, which had a side-effect (being shut down) on the mill workers.
The Newfoundland Court of Appeal has affirmed this view, noting that there was no “emergency economic” reason for Abitibi to shut down operations. Abitibi had alternative ways to those at Botwood for loading its newsprint for shipping.
For more information:
• C.E.P.U. Loc. 63 v. Abitibi Consolidated Inc., 2000 NFCA 28, docket no. 99/41, May 12/00.
