McGavin Toastmaster Ltd. v. Ainscough

McGavin Toastmaster Ltd. v. Ainscough

In presence of binding collective agreement and labour legislation, common law doctrines of repudiation and fundamental breach do not operate to defeat rights under a subsisting collective agreement; an unlawful strike did not itself terminate employment and, because the employer closed the plant rather than dismiss the employees for cause, the employer remained obligated to pay severance under the collective agreement.

Citation
[1976] 1 SCR 718
Parties
Defendant/appellant: McGavin Toastmaster Limited; Plaintiffs/respondents: Bernice Letitia Ainscough et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 April 1975
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Severance Pay, Illegal Strike, Collective Agreement, Termination of Employment, Repudiation, Arbitration
Source Language
English
Labour Law Employment Law Collective Bargaining Severance Pay Illegal Strike Collective Agreement Termination of Employment Repudiation +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McGavin Toastmaster Limited

Defendant/appellant

Bernice Letitia Ainscough et al.

Plaintiffs/respondents

Procedural Posture

Labour Law Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unlawful strike by employees terminates the employer-employee relationship
  2. 2 Whether employer is bound by severance pay provisions of a subsisting collective agreement when it closes the plant after an unlawful strike
  3. 3 Whether common law concepts of repudiation and fundamental breach apply to subsisting collective agreements

Ratio Decidendi

In presence of binding collective agreement and labour legislation, common law doctrines of repudiation and fundamental breach do not operate to defeat rights under a subsisting collective agreement; an unlawful strike did not itself terminate employment and, because the employer closed the plant rather than dismiss the employees for cause, the employer remained obligated to pay severance under the collective agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed