Halifax Shipyard v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding workers of Canada, Local 1

Halifax Shipyard v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding workers of Canada, Local 1

Both judicial applications were dismissed because the court afforded high deference to the arbitrator’s credibility findings and fact‑finding, concluded the arbitrator reasonably found the 2001 document did not effectively amend Schedule B (lack of notice to grievors), and reasonably concluded article 25.03 did not prescribe a specific penalty so the arbitrator lawfully substituted six‑month suspensions for dismissal; the award respecting Mr. Terry was upheld.

Citation
2005 NSSC 1
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Halifax Shipyard, A Division of Irving Shipbuilding Inc.; Respondent/applicant: Local 1, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Arbitration Award / Decision on Applications (judgment)
Outcome
Both applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Collective Bargaining, Unlawful Work Stoppage / Wildcat Strike, Substitution of Penalties, Standard of Judicial Review, Interpretation of Collective Agreement, Dismissal and Discipline
Source Language
English
Labour Law Arbitration Administrative Law Contract Law Collective Bargaining Unlawful Work Stoppage / Wildcat Strike Substitution of Penalties Standard of Judicial Review +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halifax Shipyard, A Division of Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

Applicant/respondent

Local 1, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Canada

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Arbitration Award / Decision on Applications (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2001 notice amended the collective agreement to make participation in an illegal work stoppage a listed major offence with a specific penalty of instant dismissal
  2. 2 Whether article 25.03 or Schedule B prescribed a specific penalty that foreclosed an arbitrator’s power to substitute penalties under statutory law
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator’s factual findings on participation in the work stoppage and on insubordination were so wrong as to attract intervention on review

Ratio Decidendi

Both judicial applications were dismissed because the court afforded high deference to the arbitrator’s credibility findings and fact‑finding, concluded the arbitrator reasonably found the 2001 document did not effectively amend Schedule B (lack of notice to grievors), and reasonably concluded article 25.03 did not prescribe a specific penalty so the arbitrator lawfully substituted six‑month suspensions for dismissal; the award respecting Mr. Terry was upheld.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed

Orders

  • Both applications for judicial review are dismissed
  • Counsel may address costs in written briefs if not settled