Supervisory Review of Grievance Arbitration Awards in Ontario, The United States, and British Columbia: A Comparison

Abstract

If grievance arbitration is to survive as an effective means of settling industrial disputes, a balance must be struck between the integrity and independence of the arbitrator against the perceived need for a supervisory body which will keep the arbitrator under control. The quality and extent of supervisory review of grievance arbitration awards depends, to a large extent, upon the respect which the reviewing authority has for the arbitral process.

We will examine the issue of supervisory review by investigating three jurisdictions in which the degree of scrutiny varies markedly. The traditional common law approach is typified by the Canadian province of Ontario, a jurisdiction in which the courts, in reviewing awards, have relied on administrative law precedents in devising a standard of review. An antithetical approach is characteristic of the United States where the Supreme Court has advocated a national labour policy of non-intervention. A variation of the American approach has been adopted in the Canadian province of British Columbia, the third jurisdiction examined, where supervisory review is vested, for the most part, in the Labour Relations Board.

This thesis is an exhaustive comparative examination of various degrees of scrutiny accorded grievance arbitration awards in the three jurisdictions. What follows is a detailed compartmentalizing and contrasting of grounds of review. While the compartments are not necessarily watertight, they serve to highlight important features of applicable review in each jurisdiction.

Subject Area

Law

Degree Date

1986

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

LL.M.

Department

Dedman School of Law

Advisor

Charles J. Morris

Second Advisor

Henry J. Lischer, Jr.

Third Advisor

William J. Flittie

Number of Pages

82

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS