Hatfield v. Essroc Canada Inc.
The court held that the appellant's claims, although styled as conspiracy and collusion, are essentially employment disputes arising from the collective agreement and are therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour board under the Weber principle and the Labour Relations Act; consequently the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 ONCA 151
- Parties
- Appellant/plaintiff: Nicholas Hatfield; Respondent/defendant: Essroc Canada Inc.; Respondent: International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local D387, Cement, Lime, Gypsum and Allied Workers Division; Respondent/defendant: Phil Williams
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal Involving Employment and Labour Relations / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Order of Superior Court of Justice Dated January 26, 2006
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Weber Principle, Unfair Representation, Remedies Under Labour Relations Act S.74 and S.96, Conspiracy/collusion Allegations
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nicholas Hatfield
Appellant/plaintiff
Essroc Canada Inc.
Respondent/defendant
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local D387, Cement, Lime, Gypsum and Allied Workers Division
Respondent
Phil Williams
Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Involving Employment and Labour Relations / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Order of Superior Court of Justice Dated January 26, 2006
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear employment-related claims that arise out of a collective agreement (Weber principle)
- 2 Whether allegations of conspiracy and collusion between employer and union fall outside court jurisdiction and must be addressed by the Labour Relations Board
- 3 What remedies, if any, are available under the Labour Relations Act for the appellant's complaints
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant's claims, although styled as conspiracy and collusion, are essentially employment disputes arising from the collective agreement and are therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour board under the Weber principle and the Labour Relations Act; consequently the court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs fixed in the amount of $3,500.00, all inclusive, for each respondent (union costs include Phil Williams).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Hatfield v. Essroc Canada Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2007-03-09 Neutral citation 2007 ONCA 151 Docket numbers C44922 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Hatfield v. Essroc Canada Inc., 2007 ONCA 151 DATE: 20070308 DOCKET: C44922 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: NICHOLAS HATFIELD (Appellant/Plaintiff) – and – ESSROC CANADA INC. – and – INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKES, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS, AKA A.F.L.-C.I.O.-C.F.L. LOCAL D387, CEMENT, LIME, GYPSUM AND ALLIED WORKERS DIVISION – and – PHIL WILLIAMS (Respondent/Defendant) BEFORE: LASKIN, FELDMAN and ROULEAU JJ.A. COUNSEL: Hugh R. Scher for the appellant Daniel J. Shields for the respondent, Essroc Canada Inc. and Joanne McMahon for the respondents, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local D387 and Phil Williams HEARD & ENDORSED: March 7, 2007 On appeal from the order of Justice Edward P. Belobaba of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 26, 2006. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Although the appellant now characterizes his claim in conspiracy and collusion between the company and the union, in essence his complaint is rooted in his employment and arises out of the collective agreement. The principle in Weber and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, deprive the court of jurisdiction over the appellant’s claims. [2] The appellant, however, is not without recourse to seek a remedy for his complaints. He may, though he has not done so, file an unfair representation complaint against the union under s. 74 of the Act, and the Board, under s. 96, has broad remedial power, including the power to award damages, against both the union and the employer. [3] The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $3,500.00, all inclusive for each respondent (which, in the case of the union, includes Williams).