An arbitrator has dismissed Wescast Industries Inc.’s attempt to block the arbitration of two policy grievances related to a plant closure, paving the way for the grievances to be heard on their merits later this year. The case, involving the auto parts manufacturer and Unifor Local 4207, centred on the company’s alleged failure to comply with the terms of the collective agreement concerning notice of plant closure and severance payments.
The notice controversy
The first grievance, filed on June 15, 2023, by Unifor, alleged that Wescast Industries provided insufficient notice to employees about the closure of its Wingham, Ont., casting facility, violating the terms of the collective agreement. The union argued that the notice given exceeded what is considered a “permanent layoff” under the Ontario Employment Standards Act (ESA) and that the company failed to adhere to the Plant Closure or Partial Plant Closure Agreement, which would have mandated different terms of notice and severance.
Wescast Industries, however, argued that the grievance should not proceed to arbitration, contending that the collective agreement had expired and that the union failed to refer the grievance to arbitration within the required timeframe.
Arbitrator Scott G. Thompson, after reviewing the grievance procedure outlined in the collective agreement, found that Wescast Industries never responded in writing to the grievance at Step 2 of the process, which would have triggered the time limit for referring the grievance to arbitration.
Thompson noted that “there is no evidence that the Employer ever responded to Grievance 1117” and that the “time limit in article 7.01a for referring a grievance to arbitration under the Collective Agreement was never triggered.” Consequently, the arbitrator dismissed Wescast’s preliminary objection, allowing Grievance 1117 to move forward.
The severance dispute
The second grievance, filed on April 15, 2024, pertained to Wescast’s alleged failure to pay severance and termination pay to employees who had been laid off for 35 weeks or more, as stipulated by the collective agreement and the ESA. Wescast attempted to argue that this grievance was not arbitrable since it was filed after the expiration of the collective agreement on June 30, 2023.
However, Unifor contended that the collective agreement had automatically renewed for another year because the union had given notice to bargain within the appropriate timeframe. Moreover, the union invoked the statutory freeze provisions under the Labour Relations Act, which maintain the terms and conditions of an expired collective agreement until a new agreement is reached or other specific conditions are met.
Arbitrator Thompson found the union’s argument persuasive, concluding that the statutory freeze provisions were in effect when Grievance 1122 was filed and that the grievance was therefore arbitrable. He cited previous decisions, including Truck Crane Service Ltd. and Hamilton Civic Hospitals v. CUPE 794, which supported the view that grievances filed during the statutory freeze period are valid and must be heard.
Thompson’s ruling emphasized that “the grievance procedure under the Collective Agreement was exhausted by the Employer’s step two response and the Union referred Grievance 1122 to arbitration pursuant to section 49(1) within twenty-one days of the step two response.” Therefore, the arbitrator dismissed Wescast’s objection to the arbitrability of the grievance.
What’s next
With both preliminary objections rejected, the two grievances will proceed to a full arbitration hearing scheduled for August 13 and 27, 2024.
For more information, see Unifor, Local 4207 v Wescast Industries Inc., 2024 CanLII 74723 (ON LA).
