LABOUR RELATIONS |
Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. v. Roe
T-1563-99
Dawson J.
8/9/00
20 pp.
Termination of Employment--Application for judicial review of adjudicator's decision on respondent's complaint under Canada Labour Code against employer Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. for termination of employment--Adjudicator found although Rogers had been conducting legitimate reorganization, other considerations, not disclosed to respondent, played part in selection of respondent for termination--Adjudicator found non-disclosure breach of procedural fairness inherent in just cause concept under Code--In consequence, respondent awarded 3/4 of legal fees, all reasonable disbursements and expenses for total of $53,000--Issues whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction in concluding actual operative and dominant reason for termination of respondent not lack of work or discontinuance of function; whether adjudicator based decision on erroneous finding of fact, made in perverse or capricious manner or without regard to material before him, in finding Rogers took advantage of otherwise legitimate business reasons to terminate respondent, that discontinuance of function not actual operative and dominant reason for termination, and that respondent had not been informed of real reason for termination prior to hearing--Rogers asserting once adjudicator found that staff reduction resulted from genuine business reorganization, that Rogers entitled to terminate part-time Data Control Clerks (like respondent) due to lack of work, and that respondent terminated in manner not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable, adjudicator lost jurisdiction as, pursuant to Code, s. 242(3.1), adjudicator cannot consider complaint where complainant laid off (blameless termination) due to lack of work--Application allowed--In considering whether adjudicator made findings of fact without regard to material before him, standard of review patent unreasonableness; in determining whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to proceed with complaint, standard of review correctness--Once adjudicator determined Roger had established its reorganization bona fide, and entitled to terminate members of Data Control department due to lack of work, adjudicator without jurisdiction to consider merits of respondent's dismissal--Conclusion supported by Air Canada v. Davis (1994), 72 F.T.R. 283 (F.C.T.D.) and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Jindal (1996), 110 F.T.R. 221 (F.C.T.D.); affd (1998), 229 N.R. 212 (F.C.A.)--Although not necessary to review alternate ground, adjudicator's findings (that Rogers' entire rationale based on seniority and that it departed from that criteria to select respondent for termination) made without regard to evidence before him and, therefore, patently unreasonable--Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2.