- June 9, 2021
- Jurisdiction/Cases Involving Rival Unions
Background
IATSE 891 applied under Section 99 of the Labour Relations Code (the “Code”) for a review of an arbitration award dated January 5, 2007 (the “Award”) which was issued as a clarification of an earlier award dated September 20, 2006 (Ministry No. A-164/06) (the “Seniority Dispatch Award”).
Pursuant to Section 79 of the Code, an Industrial Inquiry Commissioner (“IIC”) was appointed to inquire in to the BC film industry. A portion of his recommendations were made with respect to seniority dispatch. The Parties did not agree to implement those recommendations and as a result the arbitrator was appointed as an IIC pursuant to the Code. The Arbitrator made guidelines for negotiations and stated that the issue of seniority dispatch may be referred back to the arbitrator for binding arbitration. IATSE 891 came to an agreement with the Employer however after the Teamsters failed to come to an agreement. IATSE 891 then sought to retract its offer. The matter was sent to binding arbitration.
In the Seniority Dispatch Award, the arbitrator held that IATSE 891 could not back out of its original deal. Following the release of that Seniority Dispatch Award, the Employer wrote to the arbitrator requesting clarification on three issues including whether the order of layoffs will be made in the same manner as the dispatch. Following receipt of the Employer’s letter, IATSE 891 objected to the Arbitrator making a ruling on the question posed by the Employer asserting that the issue of order of lay-off was not before the arbitrator and therefore, the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to rule on that issue.
The Arbitrator released the Award holding that the lay-off order would be subject to the same restrictions as the dispatch order. In so doing, the Arbitrator did not provide reasons relating to the challenge to his jurisdiction.
In its review of the Award, the Board held that in the Terms of Reference for which the Arbitrator was appointed as an IIC there is no mention of layoff. Therefore, the objections raised by IATSE 891 “raised serious jurisdictional issues which required an answer in written reasons from the arbitrator”. Consequently, the Board held that the arbitrator failed to give a reasoned analysis in the Award. As a result, the Board remitted the matter to the Arbitrator to give written reasons with respect to whether he has the jurisdiction to make a ruling concerning layoff.