Despite procedural unfairness, the rehearing's outcome would remain unchanged: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has upheld an arbitrator’s decision that overturned the suspension of a union representative for unprofessional conduct.
PUC Services Inc. had suspended longtime employee and Power Workers' Union, Local 1000, representative Jeff Priddle for one day, citing unprofessional and disrespectful behaviour during and after a disciplinary meeting involving another employee. The union challenged the suspension, arguing that union representatives are afforded broad protections in their interactions with management.
The arbitration, held under the collective agreement between PUC and the Power Workers' Union, resulted in a ruling favouring the union. The arbitrator acknowledged that while Priddle’s conduct during the disciplinary meeting was unprofessional and rude, union representatives should be given more leeway in their dealings with management. The arbitrator concluded that PUC did not have just cause for suspending Priddle and struck down the one-day suspension.
Dissatisfied with the arbitration outcome, PUC sought judicial review of the decision, raising two primary arguments. First, PUC argued that the arbitration process was procedurally unfair, claiming the arbitrator had refused to hear several of its preliminary objections, including issues related to the admissibility of evidence. Additionally, PUC contended that the arbitrator did not provide adequate reasons for procedural rulings, including the refusal to allow PUC to cross-examine Priddle. Second, PUC argued that the arbitrator applied the wrong legal standard in determining the scope of protection afforded to union representatives.
The Superior Court partially agreed with PUC, finding that the arbitration process was procedurally flawed. The court determined that the arbitrator's refusal to hear PUC’s preliminary objections and the lack of reasons for procedural rulings made the process unfair. However, despite identifying these issues, the court declined to order a new hearing. It concluded that the outcome of a rehearing would remain unchanged, as the arbitrator had already accepted PUC’s evidence regarding Priddle’s conduct and applied the correct legal test. The arbitrator had decided that Priddle’s behaviour, though rude, was protected within the broad latitude granted to union representatives.
The court also dismissed PUC’s other procedural concerns, including the denial of an adjournment and the refusal to allow Priddle's cross-examination. The court found these issues did not amount to procedural unfairness, noting that the collective agreement gave the arbitrator wide discretion over the process. Ultimately, the Ontario Superior Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision and dismissed PUC’s application for judicial review.
