Government of British Columbia v. Registered Psychiatric Nurses’ Association of B.C. et al.

Government of British Columbia v. Registered Psychiatric Nurses’ Association of B.C. et al.
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1978-03-01
Report
[1978] 2 SCR 434
Judges
Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Pratte, Yves
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Labour law
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Government of British Columbia v. Registered Psychiatric Nurses’ Association of B.C. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 434
Date: 1978-03-01
The Government of the Province of British Columbia represented by the Public Service Commission of British Columbia Appellant;
and
The Registered Psychiatric Nurses’ Association of British Columbia and The Registered Nurses’ Association of British Columbia Respondents.
1978: March 1.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Labour relations—Collective agreement—Arbitration award—Question as to maximum and medium security wards, extra remuneration and time frame put to arbitration board—Specific question of law—No reversible error of law committed by board in disposition of matters referred to it.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia pronounced June 24, 1977, setting aside a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia pronounced January 6, 1977, which had remitted an arbitration award to a board of arbitrators with the direction that it receive certain evidence and reconsider its decision. Appeal dismissed.
J.M. Giles and M.E. Saunders, for the appellant.
R.E. Cocking, for the respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We do not need to hear you, Mr. Cocking. We agree with the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the arbitration board did not commit a reversible error of law in its disposition of the matters referred to it. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. The so-called cross-appeal is abandoned and there will be no order as to costs in respect thereto. Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the respondents: McTaggart, Ellis & Co., Vancouver.