On June 2, 2016, the Quebec Superior Court upheld a grievance
arbitrator's award in which he ruled that wearing a union
button at a time when no collective bargaining was in progress
contravened the collective agreement and was not automatically
protected by the Charter of Human Rights and
In STT de l'Hôtel Méridien de
Montréal (CSN) et Hyatt Regency
Montréal,2 arbitrator Pierre Laplante heard
a union grievance that included a claim that union members who were
prevented from working on July 14, 2010 should be paid their
The grievance related to a period when labour relations between the Meridien Hotel (employer) and the accredited union were strained.
In late spring 2010, the union obtained a mandate from its members to engage in union activities in order to sensitize the employer to its principal claims. Given the employer's failure to react to a first union activity that took place outside the hotel, the union invited its members to pin a button on their work uniform on July 14, 2010.
The button bore the following message: "Hôtel Hyatt Regency – Staff cuts = Bad services". The message worn by the unionized employees was clearly visible to both management and patrons of the hotel.
The employer immediately demanded that the union order its members to remove the button, which the union refused to do. Faced with the union's refusal, the employer decided to close the union office situated on the hotel premises, expelled the union representatives and told individual employees who were wearing the button to remove it if they wished to continue working.
Most of the employees concerned refused to remove their buttons and the employer finally sent 80 of them home for the remainder of the day. The union filed a grievance contesting all of the employer's decisions.
Although the union claimed that the employer had violated the
employees' freedom of expression, which is protected by the
Charter of human rights and freedoms, and that it had
discriminated against them for engaging in union activities, the
arbitrator found that, by wearing the button, the employees were
conveying a message that was harmful to the employer's
reputation and that their refusal to remove the button was an act
of insubordination that justified the employer's decision to
send them home.
The arbitrator accepted most of the employer's arguments, but allowed the grievance in part.
He observed that employees' freedom of expression continues to be an essential component of labour relations, but pointed out that there are limits on such freedom when it is exercised outside the collective bargaining period.
He suggested that the union's real objective was not to inform the patrons of the hotel about the hotel's internal management, but rather to "trigger a pressure tactic that would disturb the patrons of the hotel and force the employer to respond positively to the union's claims which it had previously ignored."3
More importantly, the parties were not engaged in collective bargaining and no labour dispute with the employer was anticipated in the short or medium term.
In this context, the union's action contravened the collective agreement because the parties had expressly agreed that grievance arbitration would be the sole means of settling disputes during the term of the collective agreement. The parties had thus specifically excluded the use of any pressure tactics, such as wearing buttons in the workplace.
The wearing of buttons thus constituted a confrontational tactic that harmed the employer's reputation.
The arbitrator also maintained that the union members' refusal to remove their buttons when instructed to do so by the employer was an act of insubordination that justified the decision to send them home.
However, the arbitrator did allow the part of the grievance contesting the expulsion of the union representatives and the unilateral closing of the office made available to them. This action directly contravened express provisions in the collective agreement; moreover, the employer did not show evidence of any urgent reason for its actions.
The Union applied for judicial review of the arbitration award,
arguing that the decision had deprived the union members of their
protection under the Charter. However, the Superior Court dismissed
the union's application. In its decision, the court observed
that the dispute did not really concern the meaning or scope of the
fundamental rights provided for in the Charter, but had more to do
with the application and interpretation of the collective agreement
between the parties. Therefore, the court's role was solely to
determine whether the arbitrator's reasoning and findings were
According to the court, the arbitrator's finding that the employees were guilty of insubordination was a possible rational outcome and the arbitrator's reasoning was sufficiently grounded and intelligible.
Like the arbitrator, the court also observed that there was no labour dispute or collective bargaining in progress between the parties at the time.
The unionized employees' freedom of expression thus had to be interpreted in light of these circumstances. Rather than rushing to apply the Charter to labour relations, precedence should be given to the contractual remedies provided in the collective agreement, including grievance arbitration.
1. Syndicat des travailleuses et des travailleurs de
l'Hôtel Méridien de Montréal (CSN) c.
Laplante, 2016 QCCS 2639.
2. STT de l'Hôtel Méridien de Montréal (CSN) et Hyatt Regency Montréal, 2015 QCTA 288.
3. Supra, note 2, para. 55.
About Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global law firm. We provide the world's preeminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have 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
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.