Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Appellant is a trade union representing labourers in the construction industry in northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories that entered into a collective agreement with the Respondent employer. The Appellant maintained a hiring hall and employers seeking labourers contacted the union to request the number of labourers required be dispatched. The Respondent employed labourers at a construction project. The Grievor, Linda Gergly, had been a member of the union for 14 years and had previously worked for the Respondent on another project in the fall of 1998. She had been laid off in December of 1998 for lack of work. Although there had been difficulties between her and the Respondent, she had not been terminated for cause. There was a notation on her record with the Respondent, however, that she was not to be rehired. On June 30, 2000, the Respondent faxed to the Appellant the names of 22 labourers, including that of the Grievor, that it did not wish to have dispatched to its job sites. In late July, the Respondent requested eleven labourers for the Shell construction project. The Appellant's dispatch slips were received by Marvin Bloski, one of the Respondent's managers, who noted that the Grievor was included among them. Bloski called the Grievor and advised her not to come to the construction site. Despite this, on July 31, 2000, the Grievor was dispatched by the union to the project in accordance with union hiring hall procedures. Although she went through the orientation procedures, she was not assigned to a work crew and was told to go home. Two other labourers who had also been on the "not for rehire" list were given work that day by the Respondent.

The Appellant claimed that the Respondent's refusal to put the Grievor to work constituted a violation of Article 6 of the collective agreement, stating that the Respondent was required to hire the labourers dispatched by the union. The arbitrator agreed with this position. Her decision was quashed on judicial review. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the reviewing judge.