Services publics — Pouvoir du tribunal d'arbitrage d'amender sa propre sentence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A council of arbitration, appointed under the Act respecting Municipal and School Corporations and their Employees, which remained in office after rendering its award with power to hear any dispute arising as to its interpretation but whose authority has been limited by a clause in the agreement annexed to the award and reading as follows: Le Tribunal d'arbitrage n'aura pas juridiction pour rendre une décision incompatible avec les dispositions de cette convention, ni pour changer, modifier ou amender quelque partie que ce soit de cette convention. has the right to interpret its award and to correct a simple clerical error, but not to amend it. In the present instance, under the terms of the award, the employees of the same category as plaintiff were entitled to be paid at the rate of $1.29 per hour for time worked up to 44 hours a week, plus 50% for time worked in excess of 44 hours a week, the whole retroactive to a specified date. It cannot be said that it is only through a clerical error that the award was made retroactive not only as to the rate of pay but also as to the hours of work a week, even if it resulted in hardship for the employer. A tribunal cannot amend its decision any time that it finds that it acted without full information or complete realization of the effect of such dicision An arbitration award is not null because it was made retroactive for 13 months, contrary to the article 12 of the above-mentionned Act which limits the retroactivity to 12 months; but tis retroactivity should be reduced to that period. In amending its award as it did the council acted without jurisdiction and plaintiff was justified in taking action for the amount due to him under the award as originally made, but with the period of retroactivity shortened from 13 to 12 months.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.017 |
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".