Part of the 'bargain' of collective bargaining is that bargaining unit members surrender many of their common law employment rights if they aren't expressly provided in the collective agreement. This was the issue that recently came before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Bruce v Cohon when former CFL wide receiver Arland Bruce brought a civil claim against the CFL, its Commissioner and a number of CFL teams alleging that he suffered concussions while playing for the BC Lions and that he was improperly permitted to continue playing. The Defendants argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because arbitration was mandatory under the CFL's collective agreement.

Chief Justice Hinkson cited appellate jurisprudence from across Canada which established the principle of the union's exclusive representation. He held that the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the exclusive jurisdiction approach, which requires unionized employees to proceed by arbitration in any disputes arising from the collective agreement, and ousts the jurisdiction of the court in such disputes. These cases established three factors to determine whether the courts have jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between an employee and his or her employer in the face of a collective agreement:

  1. a) the "ambit" of that collective agreement;
  2. b) the essential character of the dispute between the parties; and
  3. c) whether the collective agreement provides the employee or the employer with an effective remedy.

Chief Justice Hinkson held that the ambit of the collective agreement covered compensation, workplace safety and its grievance procedure stated that any alleged dispute between a player and his team should be resolved through arbitration. The essential nature of the dispute related to player health and safety which was within the scope of the collective agreement. Finally, there was an effective remedy under the collective agreement even though it would be necessary to obtain an arbitral order granting an extension of the period in which the grievance may be brought. For these reasons, the civil litigation could not proceed.

Written with the assistance of Danny Urquhart, articling student.


About Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

Norton Rose Fulbright is a global law firm. We provide the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers and other legal staff based in more than 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.

Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.

For more information about Norton Rose Fulbright, see nortonrosefulbright.com/legal-notices.

Law around the world
nortonrosefulbright.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.