Labour board has jurisdiction even though collective agreement with CAW expired: Court
Say a truck assembly plant closes its doors permanently and the company has no collective agreement in place with its laid-off unionized workforce.
Should the terms of the previous collective agreement apply or do the rules of common law take over?
An Ontario Superior Court ruling, it appears, has settled that sticky issue — at least for now.
On May 9, Justice Richard C. Gates dismissed a proposed class action by Cathy Baker and Joe Lucier, former employees at the Navistar plant in Chatham, Ont., that closed in July 2011. They had sought an order certifying a class action on behalf of 800 former employees.
Baker and Lucier were represented by the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union, which had collective agreements with Navistar that expired on June 30, 2009, when all of the employees at the company were on layoff.
At issue was whether the CAW was still the exclusive bargaining agent for the Navistar workers, meaning the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, or whether the employees could seek redress of their claims in the courts via a class action.
The employees alleged Navistar breached the terms of its employment relationship with them and they were constructively or wrongfully dismissed after the plant closure because the company failed to bargain the completion of a closure agreement with the union.
They wanted the court to certify their proposed class action so they could seek compensation for items like outstanding wages, vacation pay, overtime, benefits and severance.
However, the company argued the employees were still represented by the CAW and the labour relations mechanism embodied in the Labour Relations Act (LRA) displaces the common law of individual employment contracts, so it was a matter for the OLRB.
In a 12-page written ruling, Justice Gates agreed with Navistar, stating the CAW retains its certification as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees whether a collective agreement is in force or not, and the matter is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the OLRB.
“There is an ongoing duty on both parties to bargain in good faith and, so long as that obligation remains, the three-part relationship between union, employer and employee created by the LRA displaces common law concepts,” he wrote. “In other words, the termination of a collective agreement has no effect on the parties’ ongoing obligation to bargain in good faith.”
Court had no jurisdiction
Justice Gates said the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims asserted by the Navistar employees, and to allow the class action would be tantamount to permitting the employees and their union to do indirectly what they are forbidden to do directly, and that is to circumvent the collective bargaining relationship that survives the plant closure.
Further, from a common sense perspective, it’s difficult to understand how Navistar could negotiate separate closure agreements with several hundred individual employees, he said, noting that “this would not only be unworkable, it would lead to chaos.”
John Field and Lauri Reesor of Hicks Morley in Toronto, who were counsel for Navistar on the case, contended three significant decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the courts had no jurisdiction in the matter.
“There’s a clear line of authority that he (Justice Gates) had to follow that holds that where the union is in place its certification still exists and it hasn’t abandoned its bargaining rights,” said Field. “There is no concurrent jurisdiction. There is an exclusive jurisdiction governed by the Labour Relations Act and the body that enforces that act is the OLRB.”
Field said the ruling is significant because it confirms that when the union continues to be the bargaining agent for workers, there’s no individual bargaining with the employees.
Union disappointed with ruling
The union, predictably, is disappointed at the judge’s ruling and intends to appeal the decision, said Lewis Gottheil, the CAW staff lawyer who represented the Navistar employees.
“Our view was that when there’s no collective agreement, a worker has an option to go to court,” he said. “The employer argued that all of this was a collective bargaining issue and there was no cause for action by the courts because there’s no individual contracts.”
Gottheil said unionized workplaces shouldn’t fret about the decision because the Navistar situation was unique, and the plant closed while there was no agreement in place.
“A lot of times what happens is that the agreement expires and then somebody goes out on strike or gets locked out and then there’s a closure,” he said. “This is different. To that degree, it doesn’t have broad applications but the principles of law are still important.”
Despite the ruling, Gottheil said the battle is not over.
“We believe we do have the ability to appeal,” he said. “We are looking at it (the judge’s ruling) carefully and we’re looking at what the grounds of appeal may be.”
Navistar, meanwhile, intends to oppose any appeal.
“Our position is they can seek to appeal but the decision is correct,” said lawyer Field. “There is no proposed class action right now because the action’s been dismissed.”
Grant Cameron is a Toronto-based freelance writer.
Should the terms of the previous collective agreement apply or do the rules of common law take over?
An Ontario Superior Court ruling, it appears, has settled that sticky issue — at least for now.
On May 9, Justice Richard C. Gates dismissed a proposed class action by Cathy Baker and Joe Lucier, former employees at the Navistar plant in Chatham, Ont., that closed in July 2011. They had sought an order certifying a class action on behalf of 800 former employees.
Baker and Lucier were represented by the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union, which had collective agreements with Navistar that expired on June 30, 2009, when all of the employees at the company were on layoff.
At issue was whether the CAW was still the exclusive bargaining agent for the Navistar workers, meaning the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, or whether the employees could seek redress of their claims in the courts via a class action.
The employees alleged Navistar breached the terms of its employment relationship with them and they were constructively or wrongfully dismissed after the plant closure because the company failed to bargain the completion of a closure agreement with the union.
They wanted the court to certify their proposed class action so they could seek compensation for items like outstanding wages, vacation pay, overtime, benefits and severance.
However, the company argued the employees were still represented by the CAW and the labour relations mechanism embodied in the Labour Relations Act (LRA) displaces the common law of individual employment contracts, so it was a matter for the OLRB.
In a 12-page written ruling, Justice Gates agreed with Navistar, stating the CAW retains its certification as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees whether a collective agreement is in force or not, and the matter is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the OLRB.
“There is an ongoing duty on both parties to bargain in good faith and, so long as that obligation remains, the three-part relationship between union, employer and employee created by the LRA displaces common law concepts,” he wrote. “In other words, the termination of a collective agreement has no effect on the parties’ ongoing obligation to bargain in good faith.”
Court had no jurisdiction
Justice Gates said the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims asserted by the Navistar employees, and to allow the class action would be tantamount to permitting the employees and their union to do indirectly what they are forbidden to do directly, and that is to circumvent the collective bargaining relationship that survives the plant closure.
Further, from a common sense perspective, it’s difficult to understand how Navistar could negotiate separate closure agreements with several hundred individual employees, he said, noting that “this would not only be unworkable, it would lead to chaos.”
John Field and Lauri Reesor of Hicks Morley in Toronto, who were counsel for Navistar on the case, contended three significant decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the courts had no jurisdiction in the matter.
“There’s a clear line of authority that he (Justice Gates) had to follow that holds that where the union is in place its certification still exists and it hasn’t abandoned its bargaining rights,” said Field. “There is no concurrent jurisdiction. There is an exclusive jurisdiction governed by the Labour Relations Act and the body that enforces that act is the OLRB.”
Field said the ruling is significant because it confirms that when the union continues to be the bargaining agent for workers, there’s no individual bargaining with the employees.
Union disappointed with ruling
The union, predictably, is disappointed at the judge’s ruling and intends to appeal the decision, said Lewis Gottheil, the CAW staff lawyer who represented the Navistar employees.
“Our view was that when there’s no collective agreement, a worker has an option to go to court,” he said. “The employer argued that all of this was a collective bargaining issue and there was no cause for action by the courts because there’s no individual contracts.”
Gottheil said unionized workplaces shouldn’t fret about the decision because the Navistar situation was unique, and the plant closed while there was no agreement in place.
“A lot of times what happens is that the agreement expires and then somebody goes out on strike or gets locked out and then there’s a closure,” he said. “This is different. To that degree, it doesn’t have broad applications but the principles of law are still important.”
Despite the ruling, Gottheil said the battle is not over.
“We believe we do have the ability to appeal,” he said. “We are looking at it (the judge’s ruling) carefully and we’re looking at what the grounds of appeal may be.”
Navistar, meanwhile, intends to oppose any appeal.
“Our position is they can seek to appeal but the decision is correct,” said lawyer Field. “There is no proposed class action right now because the action’s been dismissed.”
Grant Cameron is a Toronto-based freelance writer.
