|
''International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 v Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd'', () 1 SCR 282 is a leading Canadian administrative law case on the issue of procedural fairness and bias. The Supreme Court of Canada held that full board meetings of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to discuss matters of policy in relation to a case did not violate the principles of natural justice. ==Background== This action arose from a labour dispute resulting from the closure of a corrugated container plant in Hamilton operated by Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. on April 26, 1983. Prior to this closure, the union and the management had been engaged in collective bargaining, which resulted in an agreement dated April 22, 1983. The union was never informed of management's decision to close the plant. The International Woodworkers of America filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board for relief, arguing that the management had not bargained in good faith as they did not disclose information relevant to the negotiations during the process. The Board had previously decided a similar issue in ''United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 504 v. Westinghouse Canada Ltd.'',〔() OLRB Rep 577, aff'd (1980), 80 CLLC 14,062.〕 and held that there was a duty to disclose information relating to plans "which, if implemented during the term of the collective agreement, would have a significant impact on the economic lives of bargaining unit employees". Both the union and the employer argued that the ''Westinghouse'' test should be modified. Management argued that speculative information did not need to be disclosed (and on the facts of the case the decision regarding the plant closure could not be definitively established). The union argued that there is a duty disclose if the employer was "seriously considering an action which if carried out will have a serious impact on employees." After a three-member panel heard the arguments, they brought up the policy issue regarding the ''Westinghouse'' test to a "full Board meeting" of all members of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. According to the Board, the purpose of the full Board meeting was to discuss issues of policy that affect future cases. It had been the custom of the Board to hold such meetings in order to discuss decisions in order to create certainty and uniformity in their decisions, although the full Board meeting did not have power to bind individual panels in their decisions.〔() OLRB Rep 1985 at 2001.〕 Following this meeting, the panel returned a ruling in favour of the union, holding that the employers had bargained in bad faith, upholding the ''Westinghouse'' test. The employer applied for re-consideration of the decision, arguing that the full Board meeting was illegal because it violated the ''audi alteram partem'' rule of natural justice, that decisions could not be made unless the parties were heard. In this case, although the three members who heard the case were part of the full Board meeting, the employers argued that the full Board meeting did not have the opportunity to hear the arguments first hand and were not entitled to make a decision on their case. The Board upheld its decision, and the case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of whether the rules of natural justice allow a full Board meeting to take place, given the policy considerations relevant to the Board.〔() 1 SCR 282 at para 69.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 v Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|