Bradburn v. Wentworth Arms Hotel

Bradburn v. Wentworth Arms Hotel

The Notice to Bargain under Article 13.01 operated to terminate the agreement at its expiry and invoke the statutory bargaining and conciliation scheme; once conciliation failed and the minister declined to appoint a Conciliation Board and the 14-day statutory period elapsed the union was free to strike. The arbitration board's contrary interpretation that Article 13.02 perpetuated the agreement was unreasonable and improperly sought to contract out of the Labour Relations Act; the award was therefore quashed.

Citation
[1979] 1 SCR 846
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: William Bradburn on his own behalf and on behalf of members of Local 197, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union; Respondent / Defendant: Wentworth Arms Hotel Limited; Respondent / Defendant: Owen Shime; Respondent / Defendant: Donald J. McKillop, Q.C.; Respondent / Defendant: Thomas E. Armstrong, Q.C.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 1978
Procedural Posture
Labour Law (collective Bargaining and Arbitration) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; arbitration award quashed; costs awarded to appellants
Legal Topics
Strike Law, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Arbitrability, Jurisdiction of Arbitration Board, Continuation (bridge) Clauses
Source Language
English
Labour Law Arbitration Collective Bargaining Statutory Interpretation Strike Law Collective Agreement Interpretation Arbitrability Jurisdiction of Arbitration Board +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Bradburn on his own behalf and on behalf of members of Local 197, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union

Appellant / Plaintiff

Wentworth Arms Hotel Limited

Respondent / Defendant

Owen Shime

Respondent / Defendant

Donald J. McKillop, Q.C.

Respondent / Defendant

Thomas E. Armstrong, Q.C.

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Law (collective Bargaining and Arbitration) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 13.02 created a continuing collective agreement in force during the strike
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration board had jurisdiction to determine arbitrability and the existence of the agreement
  3. 3 Whether s.44(1) or s.44(2) of the Labour Relations Act applied to Article 13

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice to Bargain under Article 13.01 operated to terminate the agreement at its expiry and invoke the statutory bargaining and conciliation scheme; once conciliation failed and the minister declined to appoint a Conciliation Board and the 14-day statutory period elapsed the union was free to strike. The arbitration board's contrary interpretation that Article 13.02 perpetuated the agreement was unreasonable and improperly sought to contract out of the Labour Relations Act; the award was therefore quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; arbitration award quashed; costs awarded to appellants

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Arbitration award quashed