Ont. Supreme Court upholds decision protecting union representative’s behavior despite procedural flaws

The PUC requested judicial review, arguing that the arbitration was procedurally flawed. He alleged that the arbitrator refused to consider many preliminary issues, refused to adjourn for the presentation of answering evidence, and did not permit cross-examination of Priddle. The PUC also argued that the arbitrator used the wrong legal standard in determining the scope of protection afforded to union representatives.

Supreme Court agreed The PUC held that the arbitrator’s refusal to hear the company’s objections to the admissibility of the evidence was procedurally unfair. However, the court ruled that this injustice did not warrant a new trial. The court found that the outcome would remain the same even if the PUC’s objections were taken into account. He emphasized that the arbitrator did not rely on disputed evidence and fully accepted the PUC’s explanation of Priddle’s conduct.

Despite some procedural shortcomings, the court found that the arbitrator applied the correct legal test and reasonably concluded that Priddle’s actions, though unprofessional, were protected as union activities. The court noted that the PUC had not asserted any claims under the Occupational Safety and Health Act during the arbitration and was unable to do so at this time.

As a result, the court denied the PUC’s application and refused to remand the case for a new hearing. The court affirmed the arbitrator’s finding that Priddle’s conduct, although harsh, did not warrant disciplinary action beyond the level protected for union activities.