La Compétence Des Arbitres En Matière De Litiges Résultant De La Convention Collective: Exclusive Ou Partagée? (Jurisdiction of Arbitrators in Litigation involving Collective Agreements : Exclusive or Concurrent?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'affaire Weber a provoque de vives reactions chez les membres de la communaute juridique, certains craignant que la decision n'affecte profondement les relations de travail, d'autres ne rejouissant de l'etendue de la competence arbitrale reconnue par la plus haute cour. Cette decision precise que l'arbitre a la competence exclusive pour trancher les litiges impliquant de pretendues violations des droits garantis par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes. A l'instar de certains arbitres, universitaires et juges, l'auteure est d'avis que l'arbitre n'a souvent pas les outils necessaires pour traiter des plaintes d'actes discriminatoires et qu'on ne devrait pas obliger les parties plaignantes a proceder par voie d'arbitrage. L'auteure examine les limites de la competence arbitrale dans le contexte des decisions ontariennes en matiere de delits. Bien que le critere elabore par la Cour visant a determiner si le differend est du ressort de l'arbitre ou des tribunaux judiciaires soit d'une simplicite remarquable a premiere vue, l'auteure soutient que son application est difficile et mene a des distinctions juridiques artificielles. En accord avec les propos de la plus haute cour qui declarait que le modele de competence exclusive ne fermait pas la porte a toutes les actions en justice mettant en cause l'employeur et l'employe, l'auteure conclut qu'il faudra davantage preciser les bornes de la competence arbitrale et judiciaire tout en cherchant une solution aux problemes engendres par la multiplicite des procedures applicables a la resolution des differends en milieu de travail. The decision in Weber sparked intense debate amongst members of the labour relations community, some voicing their concerns with the potential for adverse consequences on arbitration, other expressing delight with the broad approach to arbitral jurisdiction adopted by the highest Court. The Supreme Court has affirmed the arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving alleged violations of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following the example of other academics as well as judges and arbitrators, the author is of the view that arbitrators, are not necessarily well-equipped to deal with complaints of discrimination and consequently, individuals should not be barred from seeking constitutional redress in the courts. This paper explores the boundaries of arbitral jurisdiction in tort claims in Ontario. The author contends that although the test developed by the Supreme Court for vesting arbitral jurisdiction appears simple at first glance, its application is both difficult and ambiguous and leads to artificial judicial distinctions. In keeping with the highest Court's affirmation that the exclusive jurisdiction model does not preclude all actions in the courts between employer and employee, the author concludes that the jurisdictional boundaries need to be clarified further while a legislative solution is sought to remedy the problems caused by the multiple proceedings applicable in the adjudication of workplace disputes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".