Canada Safeway Ltd. v. RWDSU, Local 454

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. RWDSU, Local 454

The majority concluded the arbitration board’s finding of a 'constructive layoff' was patently unreasonable because layoff, as used in labour law, requires a cessation or at least a substantial reduction of work; because the grievor’s actual hours did not fall, the board improperly converted a scheduling grievance into a layoff remedy not rationally connected to the collective agreement, and the Court must therefore dismiss the appeal and uphold the Court of Appeal.

Citation
[1998] 1 SCR 1079
Parties
Appellant Union: Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454; Appellant Employee: Kelly Hardy; Respondent Employer: Canada Safeway Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Labour Arbitration/judicial Review; Appeal From Arbitration Board / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed; L’Heureux‑Dubé J. dissenting
Legal Topics
Constructive Layoff, Judicial Review Standard, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Scheduling Obligations, Seniority and Bumping Rights, Remedies and Rational Connection
Source Language
English
Labour Law Administrative Law Employment Law Collective Bargaining Law Constructive Layoff Judicial Review Standard Collective Agreement Interpretation Scheduling Obligations +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454

Appellant Union

Kelly Hardy

Appellant Employee

Canada Safeway Limited

Respondent Employer

Procedural Posture

Labour Arbitration/judicial Review; Appeal From Arbitration Board / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reduction in scheduled hours while actual hours remain essentially constant can constitute a constructive layoff under the collective agreement
  2. 2 Appropriate standard of judicial review for arbitral interpretation of collective agreements under a privative clause
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration board’s remedy was rationally connected to the breach alleged and to the collective agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The majority concluded the arbitration board’s finding of a 'constructive layoff' was patently unreasonable because layoff, as used in labour law, requires a cessation or at least a substantial reduction of work; because the grievor’s actual hours did not fall, the board improperly converted a scheduling grievance into a layoff remedy not rationally connected to the collective agreement, and the Court must therefore dismiss the appeal and uphold the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed; L’Heureux‑Dubé J. dissenting

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed