The British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) has upheld an arbitration award in favour of the Public and Private Workers of Canada, Local No. 9, in a dispute with Canfor Pulp Ltd. over the classification of certain work as an emergency, impacting the notification requirements for using external contractors.
Background
The case centered around Canfor Pulp Ltd.’s appeal under Section 99 of the Labour Relations Code. Canfor sought review of an arbitrator’s decision, which interpreted the terms of a Settlement Agreement between the company and the union.
The dispute arose when Canfor engaged a contractor to clear blockages in reclaim feeders without providing the union with the agreed-upon notice. Canfor argued that the blockages constituted an “emergency,” thus exempting them from the notice requirement stipulated in the Settlement Agreement. The union disagreed, prompting the arbitration.
Arbitration findings
The arbitrator found that while blockages posed a risk of significant financial loss if not promptly addressed, they did not meet the definition of an emergency as per the collective agreement. The agreement defined an emergency as “an event that could not have been reasonably foreseen and where there is a threat to employee safety, a risk of serious damage to company property, significant loss of production, and/or significant financial loss.”
Canfor contended that the unpredictability of blockages made them unforeseeable and thus qualified as emergencies. However, the Arbitrator disagreed, stating, “Blockages are not unexpected occurrences by any stretch, and they can be predicted to occur over a relatively short period, depending on the time of year, with a considerable degree of probability.”
Board’s decision
In its review, the BCLRB affirmed the Arbitrator’s decision, emphasizing the limited scope of its review under Section 99 of the Code. The Board’s role is to determine whether the arbitrator made a genuine effort to interpret the collective agreement based on its provisions. The Board concluded that the Arbitrator had indeed made such an effort.
“Even if I were to conclude that the Arbitrator erred in his interpretation because it might lead to absurd or anomalous consequences (and I expressly draw no such conclusions), as the Board explained in Lornex, errors of interpretation, serious as they may be, are not necessarily errors of labour relations policy,” it said.
Key takeaways
- Definition of Emergency: This ruling underscores the importance of clearly defining terms like “emergency” in collective agreements. Employers must ensure they understand and adhere to these definitions to avoid disputes.
- Foreseeability and Notice Requirements: The decision highlights that events must be genuinely unforeseeable to qualify as emergencies. Regularly occurring issues, even if unpredictable in exact timing, do not necessarily meet this standard.
- Arbitrator’s Authority: The ruling reaffirms that arbitrators have significant discretion in interpreting collective agreements, and their decisions will generally be upheld if they make a genuine effort to base their conclusions on the agreement’s provisions.
For more information, see Canfor Pulp Ltd., 2024 BCLRB 74.
