Case information

Labour relations — Collective agreements — Special project orders — Grievance — Arbitration award — Employees found not to have breached collective agreement — Third party owner’s right to deny employees access to site — When can a collective agreement be imposed upon a non-party — Whether a labour arbitrator can compel a non-party to act in the absence of voluntary consent — Whether policy, as assessed solely by the Court, played an inappropriate role in determining the legal boundaries of jurisdiction and privity of contract — Whether policy allows for an interruption or circumvention of common law rules, and well established jurisprudence.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

ExxonMobil Canada Properties (“ExxonMobil”) leases the Hebron GBS platform at the Bull Arm Construction Site from a Crown agency. On that site, various policies prohibited the use or possession of alcohol, noncompliance with the site substance abuse policy, and reporting for work with a concentration of alcohol of 0.04g/L or greater. Violation of the policies risked removal from the worksite and loss of access to the worksite. According to the Agreed Statement of Facts three employees of a contractor had returned to the site after drinking offsite on their day off. Their breath tests indicated the presence of alcohol in excess of 0.04g/L. ExxonMobil revoked their access to the site for violation of its Bull Arm Site Absolutes Policy. The three employees grieved, alleging wrongful termination from employment and wrongful denial of site access.

The arbitrator found that they had not reported for work with alcohol levels in excess of the prescribed amount, nor had they otherwise breached the collective agreement. He ordered their reinstatement. In so doing, he indicated that ExxonMobil, a third party to the collective agreement, was “bound” by his decision. Thompson J. granted ExxonMobil leave to intervene, but dismissed the HPEA’s application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, Butler and Hoegg J.A., dissenting.