We are pleased to share that we have received a favourable interim decision and award from the Hon. Justice Dennis P. Ball regarding the grievance arbitration held in August between SCMMA and the City of Saskatoon. The grievance was filed in response to the termination of employment last year of SCMMA member and former President, Jackie Morley.
This interim decision, which is pending the outcome of the remaining Human Rights aspects of the grievance, marks a momentous victory for SCMMA members. It offers critical clarity on the meaning and application of Article 16.2 of our collective agreement, which the City has historically interpreted as granting it with unrestricted authority to terminate any SCMMA member’s employment at will, under the pretext of "without cause," provided they offer “fair and equitable” compensation.
Justice Ball’s decision to overturn Jackie’s termination and award her full reinstatement with back pay draws on well-established principles of collective agreement (CA) interpretation. These principles emphasize that the primary purpose of interpretation is to uncover the mutual intentions of the parties at the time the agreement was made, using the plain, literal, and ordinary meaning of the words used, unless context indicates otherwise. Additionally, phrases and terms should not be interpreted in isolation but rather within the entire agreement’s context.
Justice Ball’s findings on the applicable provisions of the CA are best summarized in paragraphs 109-111 of his decision, with paragraph 110 stating:
110. I reject the proposition that the purpose and intent of the sentence comprising the third paragraph in Article 16.2 was to confer an unfettered right on the City to terminate any employee at will, for any reason and regardless of how unfair and unjust it might be, simply by declaring that the termination was without cause. Nor do I accept that it was intended to confer an option on one party to the Collective Agreement (the Employer) to alter an unjustly terminated employee’s right to a fair and equitable remedy, including reinstatement, as set out in the second paragraph of Article 16.2, simply by declaring the termination was “without cause.”
In this interpretation, Justice Ball identifies the City’s actions against Jackie as “disguised discipline,” meaning that if an employer terminates an employee for perceived culpable behaviour, the cause does not simply vanish because the termination is labelled as “without cause.” Whether a termination is for cause or without cause is determined by the facts, not by one party’s characterization. As Justice Ball puts it, “It is a matter of putting substance over form”.
In short, this is a landmark decision for all SCMMA members, as it limits the City’s reliance on the termination without cause clause and strengthens job security across our membership.
Next Steps
Before implementing the remedies awarded, Justice Ball must rule on legal counsels’ submissions on the remaining Human Rights aspects of the grievance. We expect this to occur before year-end. Once a final decision is rendered, the City may attempt to challenge the ruling through a judicial review.
However, given the strength of Justice Ball’s reasoning, as well as the significant expenses incurred by both parties to get to this point - funded by taxpayers for the City and by member dues for SCMMA - our hope is that the City will accept this decision and prioritize reconciliation and moving forward.
Comments