Can an arbitrator interpret a collective agreement so that the provisions of the statute intended to affect labour relations come into conflict with the collective agreement?
Alberta, Canada
The following excerpt is from Southern Alberta Institute of Technology v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (Branch 39), 1985 CanLII 1319 (AB QB):
In McLeod v. Egan (supra), it was held that an arbitrator could not interpret a collective agreement so as to bring the collective agreement into conflict with the provisions of a statute meant to affect the labour relations between the parties to the agreement.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is there any difference between the provisions of an earlier collective agreement and that of the current collective agreement? (Alberta, Canada)
Does an arbitrator have jurisdiction to interpret a Collective Agreement? (Alberta, Canada)
Are issues relating to the interpretation of statutes and to the jurisdiction of the court reviewable for correctness? (Alberta, Canada)
Can an agreement by the parties of Fort McMurray (City) and the Agreement of Agreement give the parties the authority to set up an enforcement board? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 been interpreted and interpreted by the courts? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a provision of a collective agreement is an administrative decision? (Alberta, Canada)
In what circumstances will arbitrator determine the wage rates for year three of a three year collective agreement? (Alberta, Canada)
Can a collective agreement be interpreted as a statutory right? (Alberta, Canada)
Can a vendor cancel an agreement where a purchaser defaults and all moneys paid under the agreement are forfeited to the vendor? (Alberta, Canada)
Does the Arbitrator have to "explicitly address all possible shades of meaning" of contested provisions in their reasons? (Alberta, Canada)
