City entered into agreement containing a no-contracting-out provision
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied the City of Stratford's request to review a decision restricting the city from outsourcing fire dispatch services.
The City of Stratford and the Stratford Professional Fire Fighters Association are parties to a collective agreement that expired on December 31, 2019. This agreement included a no-contracting-out provision for bargaining unit work, including fire dispatch services. Amidst new regulatory requirements by the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the city sought to amend this provision to allow contracting out its fire dispatch services to comply with updated standards.
Negotiations between the city and the association, mediated by an arbitrator, failed to resolve the issue, leading to an interest arbitration where the city proposed contracting out fire dispatch services to a third-party provider due to the high costs of upgrading its system. The association opposed this proposal, emphasizing the importance of the no-contracting-out provision.
In the initial award, the arbitrator recognized the extraordinary circumstances presented by the new CRTC requirements and determined that such conditions might justify a limited exemption from the no-contracting-out provision. He suggested the most likely outcome of collective bargaining would have been an agreement allowing the city to contract out its fire dispatch services to another fire service, making concessions on staffing demands.
Subsequently, the association sought clarification on whether the exemption was limited to fire services represented by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). The arbitrator’s supplemental award in July 2022 clarified that the exemption applied only to IAFF-represented fire services, aligning with the context of mediation discussions and the examples cited in the initial award.
The city contended that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by altering the nature of the initial award and improperly relying on mediation discussions. The city argued that the arbitrator’s clarification significantly changed the unambiguous decision of the initial award and that the arbitrator was functus officio (without further authority).
The Superior Court found the arbitrator’s clarification reasonable, noting that he correctly articulated his jurisdiction's limits and provided logical reasoning supporting his decision. The court emphasized that the arbitrator intended to offer relief from the no-contracting-out provision only to the extent necessary to address the extraordinary circumstances, and this intention was reflected consistently throughout the arbitration process.
The court upheld the arbitrator’s supplemental award, dismissing the city’s application. The court ruled that the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction and reasonably applied the principles of functus officio. Additionally, the court found no issue with the arbitrator’s reference to mediation discussions, as the city had not objected to these references until months later. The court ordered the city to pay $7,500 in costs to the association.
