View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
SUBCONTRACTING AT ARBITRATION
by
Me Pierre Verge
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.
Department of Economies and Political Science, McGill University, Montreal. August 3, 1962.
M.A.
PIERRE VERGE
Subcontracting at Arbitration
Economies
A comparative study of arbitral decisions
rendered in the United States, the Canadian Common Law
Provinces and Quebec over grievances arising--in the
context of collective agreements that contain no specifie
provision on the subject--out of Management's action of
arranging with an outside firm to have it perform work
hitherto done by members of the bargaining unit. the
possible effects on future Quebec arbitral awards of a
recent amendment to the Labour Relations Act (Sec. 10 A,
Ch. 162 A, R.S.Q. 1941} are also analyzed.
FOREWORD
The occasion tbat led to the present study of arbitral
decisions on subcontraeting was the discussion initiated by
the Canadian Manufacturer's Association and revived, in
particular, at the 1961 Annual Convention of the Canadian
Bar Association, asto the effect of a recent amendmenttD
the Labour Relations Act (Sec. 10 A, Ch. 162 A, R.S.Q. 1941)
extending the terms of an existing Agreement to the new
I
employer in the case of "partial of alienation of an under-
taking": was contracting out aimed at by this new provision?
Whatever was to be the answer to this particular question,
subcontracting, of frequent occurrence in our surrounding
industrial world, stood there as an act that could be regarded,
at the same time, as one expression of Management's right to
manage and as an indirect way to avert the terms of an Agreement
bargained collectively with a Union. Subeontracting questioned
the very nature of the Agreement. More specifically it was
asked: how far could Management go in the exercise of its
recognized right to direct the undertaking "in a manner consistent
with the terms of the Agreement"? A first glanee at arbitral
II
dealings with the matter developed into a systematic survey
of arbitral decisions rendered in the United States, the
Common Law Provinces, and Quebec, with a view of discovering
differences in approaching the subcontracting issue that could,
more immediately, help see the local answer, both in terms
of the legislative amendment and of arbitral rulings, in its
proper perspective.
Sources of Part I, dealing mostly with manegerial rights
and the collective agreement in general, are to be found in
the Bibliography. Studies of U.S. Awards by prominent
American arbitrators (Cf. Bibliography) served as a basis
to Part II. These studies were brought up to date through
direct consultation of subsequent reported cases. All relevant
decisions in the 1950-62 Labour Arbitration Cases series were
studied in connection with Part III (Canadian Common Law
Provinces awards). The presence of additional privately rendered
and unreported awards is to be noted, but no practical result
could be obtained in trying to cover them. The legal context
of Part IV, where the recent amendment to the Labour Relations
Act is examined,was discussed with Professor Marie-Louis
Beaulieu of the Faculty of Law, Laval University, and with
Me Gerard Vaillancourt, Secretary of the Quebec Relations Board.
(In particular, Me Vaillancourt expressed his views as to the
origin of the new amendment. (See P. 66 ). Finally, asto
arbitral decisions rendered in the Province of Quebec, a survey
was made--with the cooperation of Mr. Claude Gaudrault, Technical
Adviser, Department of Labour of the Province of Quebec--of
all arbitration awards filed with this Department and listed
in the "General Report of the Minister of Labour of the
Province of Quebec" as related to 11managerial rights" for
III
the period 1949-50 to 1959-60 {incl.). No decisions dealing
with subcontracting as the object of a grievance were found.
There remained the whole field of privately rendered and
unreported decisions. Those collected constitute the substance
of Part v. They were communicated by the following persons:
Hon. Justice Andr Montpetit (HOpital du Sacr-Coeur de
Cartierville, Dominion Engineering, Sperry Gyroscope awards);
Hon. Justice Antoine Lamarre and Me carrier Fortin, C.R.,
of Sherbrooke, (Combustion Superheater); Yvan Legault,
Executive Secretary, Q.L.F. (Canadien Petrofina); Adrien Plourde,
Prsident, Syndicat National des Employs de l'Aluminium d'Arvida
(Aluminum cases); Professor Roger Chartier and Me Denis Levesque
{Dissenting notes in Dominion Engineering and Combustion
Superheater cases).
The present search was oriented by Professor H.D. Woods,
of the Department of Economies and Political Science at McGill
University, my tutor, and by Professor J.-Ral Cardin, directeur-
adjoint, dpartement des relations industrielles, Universit
Laval. My deepest gratitude goes to Professor Woods and Professor
Cardin for their learned views and advice and to all those persona
who cooperated in discussing particular aspects of the study or
communicating arbitral awards.
June 1962 Pierre Verge
Foreword.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBCONTRACTING AT ARBITRATION
Part I: Subcontracting Defined in its Setting.
A Introduction
1. Importance of Subcontracting issue
a) in general;
b) particularly in Quebec;
2. Definition
a) Strict def. of "Subcontracting'*;
b) Subcontracting distinguisbed from
1. "the partial operation of an
undertaking by anotber";
2. contract "of services";
3. direct "lay-off";
3. Scope of study
a) Transfer of work to supervisory
personnel studied only incidentally;
IV
b) Study limited to agreements without
specifie provision with respect to
contracting out;
c) At the arbitral level only (except
in Quebec);
d) Comparative study of arbitral decisions:
v
U.S.--Canadian Common Law Provinces--Quebec.
4. Nature of problem:
a) Management's and Union's main
contentions;
b) An application of manegerial prerogatives
in a collective agreement context.
B Management's rights Theories.
C Arbitrability and General Conception of the
Collective Agreement.
Part II: U.S. Awards
A Introduction
1. Importance of specifie criteria in current
awards;
2. Respective place of "reserved rights" and
"implied limitations" theories in U.S.
decisions.
B Study of decision where
1. Management's right to contract out retained
with qualification (s) ("Reserved rights"
tendency);
2. Implied limitations to Management' a right
to contract out are dominant;
VI
3. Decisions based upon examination of objective
circumstances;
4. Criteria for judging contracting out cases.
C Conclusion
1. The current place of management's rights
theories:
a) strict "reserved rights" theory abandoned;
b) moderate "implied limitations" theory
almost universally accepted;
2. --"Economy" reconsidered;
--"Good faith" and "efficiency" in U.S. awards.
Part III: Canadian Common Law Provinces Awards
A Introduction
1. Study of arbitral decisions over issues
involving the allotment of work outside unit,
to supervisory personnel.
B Decisions on contracting out "stricto sensu"
1. "Reserved rights" theory:
a) Strict adherence
--simple cases
--cases opposing "master-servantn to
"independent contractor" relationship;
b) Other factors considered (one case).
2. "Implied limitations" theory.
C Summacy
VII
Part IV: Province of Quebec: New Section 10 A of Ch. 162 A,
R.S .Q. 1941
Introduction: Civil Code Setting and Statutory Laws
Sec. 10 A, Ch. 162 A:
A The text of sec. 10 A;
B Possible effects on contracting out issue;
C Its sources
1. Legislative
a) France
b) Other Canadian Provinces
c) Other P.Q. laws
2. Jurisprudence
a) Province of Quebec
1) Cobra case
2) Vachon case
3) Brown case
4) Coll in case
b) France (after 1918 law)
c) B.C. award
D Interpretation
1. Me Pigeon's views;
2. Possible distinction based upon "entreprise"
concept.
Part V: Quebec Arbitral Awards (Right to contract out
retained in all majority awards reviewed)
A Decisions involving particular interpretations
1. tay-off";
2. "shortage of work".
VIII
B Decision rendered upon notion of "contrat d'entreprise"
1of/for services) {one case).
C Straight application of'reserved rights'theory
(includins study of union minority views).
D Conclusion
1. Summary of awards;
2. Possible effect of new section 10 A upon
future arbitral decisions;
3. An express prohibition likely to continue
to be required to prelude Management from
contracting out.
General Conclusions
A Summary of trend
Recommended
View more >