) ) UNITED STEEL, PAPER v. FORESTRY,, 2013 ONSC 6212

CITATION : United Steel, Paper and Forestry v. Vale Canada Limited, 2013 ONSC 6212 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 572/12 DATE: 20131003 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO, PARDU AND SACHS JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (UNITED STEELWORKERS), AND ITS LOCAL 6500 Applicant – and – VALE CANADA LIMITED Respondent )) )) )) )) ))))))) Rosemary Basa , for the Applicant Frank Cesario and Jacqueline J.

Luksha , for the Respondent ) ) HEARD at Toronto: October 3, 2013 PARDU J. (orally) [ 1 ] The applicant Union seeks judicial review of an Arbitrator’s decision upholding the respondent employer’s termination of Randy Taylor’s employment because of his failure to maintain key equipment and falsification of maintenance records. [ 2 ] The applicant argues that it was not accorded procedural fairness because the ultimate decision was based on wilfull neglect on the part of the employee.

The applicant submits that it was unfair to base the decision on that ground when the applicant Union expected that the case would turn on whether the employee deliberately sabotaged the equipment. [ 3 ] The issues before the Arbitrator were abundantly clear to all parties.

The facts in issue were fully canvassed before the Arbitrator and each party had ample opportunity to urge its version of the facts before the Arbitrator. [ 4 ] The employer argued wilfull neglect before the Arbitrator and provided the Union with the case authorities in support a week before the hearing. [ 5 ] In his award dated July 19, 2012, the Arbitrator found as follows at page 7: Mr.

Taylor was not accused of, nor did he engage in deliberate sabotage of the Plant’s equipment. [ 6 ] The fact that the Union, perhaps for its own strategic reasons chose to try and cast the employer’s case as one of sabotage, does not mean that there was a procedural unfairness when its characterization of the employer’s case was rejected by the Arbitrator who then went ahead and made findings on the basis of the case that was actually presented.

The applicant made no complaints before the Arbitrator that it was caught by surprise and it is inappropriate to now raise this for the first time. [ 7 ] There was no basis to conclude that the applicant was treated with any procedural unfairness.

[ 8 ] The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent in the agreed upon amount of $4,500.00 A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO [ 9 ] I have endorsed the back of the Application Record, “For oral reasons delivered today, application dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,500 all inclusive.” A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO PARDU J. SACHS J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 3, 2013 Date of Release: October 7, 2013 CITATION : United Steel, Paper and Forestry v. Vale Canada Limited, 2013 ONSC 6212 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 572/12 DATE: 20131003 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO, PARDU AND SACHS JJ. BETWEEN:

UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (UNITED STEELWORKERS), AND ITS LOCAL 6500 Applicant – and – VALE CANADA LIMITED Respondent ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PARDU J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 3, 2013 Date of Release: October 7, 2013