UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The policies underlying interest dispute settlement in British Columbia and New Zealand Joseph, Philip A. 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A6_4 J68.pdf [ 17.65MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077665.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077665-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077665-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077665-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077665-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077665-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077665-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077665-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077665.ris

Full Text

THE POLICIES UNDERLYING INTEREST DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND NEW ZEALAND by PHILIP AUSTIN JOSEPH L L . B . (Hons) , U n i v e r s i t y o f Canterbury , 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAW i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( F a c u l t y o f Law) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA M a y , 1 9 8 3 © P H I L I P AUST IN J O S E P H , 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT A l l the western i n d u s t r i a l economies have had to devote t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t h i s century to ways of m i n i m i s i n g the d i s r u p t i o n t h a t o f t e n accompanies c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s i n d i sputes o f i n t e r e s t . This t h e s i s examines the markedly d i f f e r i n g means o f a c h i e v i n g t h i s o b j e c t i v e i n B r i t i s h Columbia and New Zea land . Chapters II and VII present the f i r s t po in t of d i f f e r e n c e : the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e versus j u d i c i a l s o l u t i o n to labour d i s p u t e s . Chapter II por t rays the i n t e n t o f the B r i t i s h Columbia L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly when i t enacted the Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1973, examines the language the Code employed i n seeking to f o r e c l o s e the c o u r t ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n i n labour m a t t e r s , and observes those ins tances where the j u d i c i a r y has disavowed the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n s t r u c t i o n to the c o u r t s . I t i s argued t h a t f o r the j u d i c i a r y to in te rvene f u r t h e r i n the P r o v i n c e ' s labour r e l a t i o n s would be both unwelcome and an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e n i a l o f the r u l e e n j o i n i n g j u d i c i a l obedience to s t a t u t e . Chapter VII presents the j u d i c i a l s o l u t i o n to i n t e r e s t d i spu tes f o r which New Zea land 's I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n i s reknowned. Whereas B r i t i s h Columbia 's o b j e c t i v e has been to avo id the repercuss ions of j u d i c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n i n s e n s i t i v e labour d i s p u t e s , New Zea land 's i n d u s t r i a l l e g i s l a t i o n promotes the (iv) j u d i c i a l s o l u t i o n on two l e v e l s : through the A r b i t r a t i o n Court uphold ing the A c t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l requirement i n a r b i t r a t i o n proceedings and through p r e s e r v i n g the concur rent j u r i s d i c t i o n of the o r d i n a r y cour ts to e n t e r t a i n c i v i l proceedings r e s u l t i n g from i n d u s t r i a l a c t i o n . Chapter 11A i s a p o s t s c r i p t to Chapter I I . This appends the recent d e c i s i o n o f the Supreme Court o f Canada, d e l i v e r e d subsequent to the t ime o f w r i t i n g o f Chapter I I , determin ing f o r the f i r s t time t h a t to i n s u l a t e a p r o v i n c i a l l y - c o n s t i t u t e d s t a t u t o r y t r i b u n a l from review of d e c i s i o n s on quest ions of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 96 of the B r i t i s h North America A c t , 1867. Th is renders hencefor th the d e t a i l e d examinat ion o f the Code's j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e p r i n c i p a l l y f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n s where the " s e c t i o n 96" problem does not a r i s e - where the s o l e i s s u e i s the a p p r o p r i a t e d r a f t i n g of an e f f e c t i v e p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e . Chapter I I I p o r t r a y s i n l i g h t of t r a d i t i o n a l Canadian labour p o l i c y the f i r s t i n n o v a t i o n o f the B r i t i s h Columbia labour s t a t u t e : the replacement o f a l l f a c i l i t y f o r normative i n t e r v e n t i o n i n i n t e r e s t d i sputes w i th procedures p r o v i d i n g s o l e l y f o r accommodative i n t e r v e n t i o n . I t i s e x p l a i n e d why t h i s i s a s i g n i f i c a n t development f o r Canadian labour p o l i c y . But probably the most s i g n i f i c a n t development i s the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board 's r e j e c t i o n of the American j u r i s p r u d e n c e and the per se r u l e s a t t a c h i n g to the c a t e g o r i e s of b a r g a i n i n g sub jec ts i n the Un i ted S t a t e s . This i s examined i n Chapter IV. W h i l s t the prospect of some r e s i d u a l l i m i t a t i o n on the s u b s t a n t i v e scope of b a r g a i n i n g under the B r i t i s h Columbia s t a t u t e i s not d iscounted e n t i r e l y , the Board 's p o l i c y has been to remove a l l l e g a l i s s u e s from the barga in ing t a b l e . Chapter V I I , (v) examining the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e q u i s i t e of " d i s p u t e " under the I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973 ( N . Z . ) , p rov ides the c o n t r a s t . Under the New Zealand s t a t u t e the q u e s t i o n must f i r s t be asked whether the proposed sub jec t f o r b a r g a i n i n g s a t i s f i e s the l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of p e r m i s s i b l e b a r g a i n i n g t o p i c s . I t i s submit ted t h a t no longer i s t h i s a d e f e n s i b l e q u e s t i o n i n view of the vast i n d u s t r i a l changes of the present cen tu ry . Chapter V I I I , e n t i t l e d "The L e g a l i t y of I n d u s t r i a l A c t i o n i n New Zeal a n d " , p r o v i d e s the t h i r d p o i n t of c o n t r a s t between the two systems. Whereas the l e g i t i m a c y o f the economic s a n c t i o n i s fundamental to the Labour Code's p o l i c y o f f r e e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , New Zea land ' s l e g i s l a t i v e a v e r s i o n to s t r i k e s , d a t i n g from the f i r s t I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n s t a t u t e o f 1894, i s e q u a l l y man i fes t under today ' s I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973. Chapter V, e n t i t l e d " I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n " , prov ides the necessary background on the procedures and i n s t i t u t i o n s of the New Zealand system, and shows the ex tent to which s u c c e s s i v e New Zealand governments have r e l i e d upon the I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n system as a broader inst rument of w a g e s - c o n t r o l . The pr imary q u e s t i o n r a i s e d on t h i s examinat ion concerns the New Zealand system, whether i t cou ld not l e a r n from the B r i t i s h Columbia reforms o f 1973-74 . (vi) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter p a g e ABSTRACT ( i i i ) TABLE OF STATUTES ( x i i ) TABLE OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION (xx) TABLE OF CASES ( x x i ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ( x x x i i i ) I. INTRODUCTION 1 PART I 14 II, PERFECTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTION A . .INTRODUCTION 15 B. THE JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS 17 (a) S e c t i o n 34(1) 17 i ) The d r a f t i n g d e f e c t 18 i i ) An avenue f o r review 21 (b) S e c t i o n 31 22 (c) Other s e c t i o n s 23 (d) S e c t i o n 33 ' 24 . C. THE BACKGROUND TO SECTION 33 25 (vi T) D. APPROACHES TO SECTION 33 25 (a) The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n 29 (b) P o s s i b l e arguments 32 i ) The s e c t i o n 33 de te rminat ion 32 i i ) Natura l j u s t i c e 34 i i i ) J u r i s d i c t i o n "under t h i s A c t " 37 i v ) Ex terna l law 38 E. THE BOARD'S RETREAT 38 (a) Re Pruden 38 (b) S t a t u t e s i n c o r p o r a t i n g the Code 43 F. THE JUDICIAL INCURSION 50 (a) ' E x t e r n a l law' and s e c t i o n 33 50 (b) ' E x t e r n a l law' and competing p o l i c y regimes 55 (c) ' E x t e r n a l law' and the labour s t a t u t e 57 G. CONCLUSION IIA. PERFECTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTION - POSTSCRIPT 64 A. THE DECISION IN CREVIER 64 B. LASKIN C . J . C . ' s VOLTE-FACE? 67 C. AFTER CREVIER 69 D. GENERAL 71 III, THE EVOLUTION OF CANADIAN LABOUR POLICY AND THE 72 BRITISH COLUMBIA REFORMS A. INTRODUCTION 72 B. THE STATUTORY BASIS OF AMERICAN POLICY 73 C. THE EARLY EXPERIMENTS IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 75 D. THE IMPETUS FOR A NATIONAL POLICY 80 ( v i i i ) E. POST-WAR POLICY AND THE AMBIVALENCE TO BARGAINING 83 F. THE CULMINATION OF CANADIAN POLICY: THE FIRST INNOVATION OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CODE 88 G. SUMMARY 97 IV. THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: THE AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE REJECTED 98 A. THE AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE 99 (a.) The e a r l y board d e c i s i o n s and the T a f t - H a r t l e y 99 amendment (b) N . L . R . B . v Borg-Warner Corporat ion 105 i ) The d e c i s i o n 105 i i ) Comment 107 i i i ) The "Borg-Warner s t r a i g h t - j a c k e t " 108 B. THE JURISPRUDENCE REJECTED 111 (a) The former deference to Borg-Warner 111 (b) Pulp and Paper I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Bureau 114 and Canadian Paperworkers Union (c) " L e g i t i m a t e " barga in ing sub jec ts and the 116 "employee" concept (d) "[T]he fundamental p o l i c y of the Code - the 120 f o s t e r i n g of f r e e c o l l e c t i v e barga in ing" (e) The unworkable standard of fo rb idden 123 i n s i s t e n c e and the p o t e n t i a l f o r l i t i g a t i o n ( f ) The labour board and the consequence of l e g a l 128 r e g u l a t i o n (g) The r a m i f i c a t i o n s of s u b s t i t u t i n g the 131 barga in ing resuTt i ) The p a r t i e s ' commitment 131 i i ) Contra Borg-Warner 136 (h) The e v o l u t i o n of barga in ing sub jec ts 138 ( i x ) C. THE POSSIBILITY OF SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS 143 (a) Unlawful sub jec ts 143 (b) "A l e g i t i m a t e sub ject f o r b a r g a i n i n g " 146 (c) C e r t i f i c a t i o n and the "employee" concept 157 (d) "Unusual terms" 159 (e) Summary 162 D. SECTION 70 "FIRST-CONTRACT" ARBITRATION: THE 163 EXCEPTION PROVING THE RULE PART I I 170 V . I N D U S T R I A L C O N C I L I A T I O N AND A R B I T R A T I O N 171 A. INTRODUCTION 171 B. THE INSTITUTIONS OF CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION 174 (a) The A r b i t r a t i o n Court 174 (b) C o n c i l i a t i o n Counc i l s 178 C. THE PRE-EMINENCE OF ARBITRATION 186 D. THE OMNIPRESENT STATE. 198 (a) A " s t r a t e g y of dominat ion"? 198 (b) Farewel l to f r e e wage-bargaining? 202 (c) Conc lus ion 214. V I , THE J U R I S D I C T I O N A L CONCEPT OF " D I S P U T E " z i s A. INTRODUCTION 218 B. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF "DISPUTE" IN RELATION TO 221 "INDUSTRIAL MATTERS" C. THE JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE 227 (a) In t roduct ion 227 (b) The ANZ Bank case 229 (x) (c) Clancy v Butchers Shop Employees' Union 231 (d) A f t e r Clancy 236 i ) The l i b e r a l approach 236 i i ) The re turn to Clancy 242 D. THE MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS CASES 247 E. THE CLASSICAL ECONOMICS AND THE COMMON LAW 251 (a) The common law background 251 (b) The market concept ion 255 (c) The market v s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n 258 (d) The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of modern i n d u s t r y 261 i ) General 261 i i ) New Zealand - ev idenc ing the t rend 265 F. TECHNOLOGY AND "INDUSTRIAL MATTERS" 271 (a) New Zealand Federated C l e r i c a l and O f f i c e S t a f f 271 Employees' I .A.W. v Wel l ing ton Law P r a c t i t i o n e r s ' I.U.W. (b) General 272 (c) Quaere the s t a t u t o r y j u s t i f i c a t i o n ? 276 VM. JUDICIAL CONTROL OF INTEREST DISPUTES 279 A. INTRODUCTION 279 B. THE NATURE OF ARBITRATION 280 C. JURISDICTIONAL ERROR 282 D. THE CONCURRENT JURSIDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS 287 ( x i ) VIII. THE LEGALITY OF INDUSTRIAL ACTION IN NEW ZEALAND 294 A. GENERAL 294 B. THE PRE-1973 POSITION 303 C. THE 1973 RECONSTRUCTION 307 (a) Re Disputes of R ight 308 (b) Re Disputes of I n t e r e s t 309 D. THE 1976 AMENDMENTS 311 (a) I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Amendment Acts 311 (b) Commerce Amendment Act 1976 312 E. THE 1981 AMENDMENTS 322 IX. CONCLUSION 327 BIBLIOGRAPHY 332 A. BOOKS 332 B. MONOGRAPHY 333 C. ARTICLES 334 ( x i i ) TABLE OF STATUTES CANADA A n t i - I n f l a t i o n A c t , S . C . 1 9 7 4 - 7 5 - 7 6 5 5 , . 1 3 4 , 145, 198 Assessment A u t h o r i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia A c t , S . B . C . 1974 s . 2 0 . . . . s . 2 0 ( l ) ( a ) . . . . B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y A c t , S . B . C . 1964 s . 4 s . 5 3 ( l ) s . 53(6) s . 55 s . 55(1) s . 55A B r i t i s h Columbia I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n A c t , S . B . C . 1937 Canada Labour Code, R .S .C . 1970 40, 41 40 4 3 , 51 , 52 42 42 .42 42 52 42 31(1) 122 163 164(1) 168(1) 170(b) 171.1(1) C o l l e c t i v e Barga in ing Cont inuat ion Act S . B . C . 1 9 7 5 7 7 , . 7 8 , 81 73, 9 1 , . 9 2 , 94, 168 91 24 93 93 91 91 167 44, 4 5 , 46 , 47, 49 . 44, 45 E s s e n t i a l S e r v i c e s Disputes A c t , S . B . C . 1977 s . 1 . . s . 2(2) s . 6 . . s . 6(1) 4 5 , 46, 47 , 48, 49 , 57, 58, 90 46 . 43 , 44 49 ! '. '. ' 46, 132 ( x i i i ) I n d u s t r i a l Disputes I n v e s t i g a t i o n Act S . C . 1907 72 , 76, 79 , 8 0 , 8 1 , 90 , 9 1 , 95 s . 56 . . . . . . . . 76 I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s and Disputes I n v e s t i g a t i o n A c t , R . S . C . 1952 8 2 , 8 4 , 8 5 , 90 , 91 s . 16 • • • • • • • 92 s . 17 • • • • • • • 93 s . 21 • • • • • • • 85 s . 32 86 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , R. S . B . C . 1976 s . 7(1) 54 s . 8 • • • • . . . . 17, 54 s . 35 • • • • * • • 35 s . 39A . 4 3 , 44 Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia, S . B . C . 1973 1 , 4 , 8 , ; 9 , 10, 11 , 13 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2 1 , 22, 29, 34, 36, 36 38, 39, 40, 4 1 , 42 , 4 3 , 44, 4 5 , 4 7 , 48, 49 50 , 5 1 , 53 , 5 5 , 56, 57, 58, 59 , 60 , 6 1 , 62 . 6 3 , 64, 69 , 7 3 , 88 , 9 1 , 94, 97 ,111,114,115 . 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 3 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 6 , 2 1 7 , 1 2 8 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 . 1 4 7 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 6 , 1 5 7 , 1 5 8 , 1 5 9 , 1 6 2 , 3 2 7 s . 1 116, 118 s . 1(1) 152, 153, 157, 161, 165 s . 5 • • • 53 s . 6 4 2 , 5 2 , . 1 1 7 , : 1 3 5 V : 1 4 4 , . 1 4 5 , 149, .152 s . 21 • • • . 35, 36 s . 28 • • • . 37, 38 s . 31 22, 2 3 , 24, 30, 32 , 46, 50 s . 31(a) • • • . 30, 38 s . 31(b) • • • 30, 31 , 32 s . 32 a • • . 33, 50 s . 32(1) 23, 30, 32, 38, 47 s . 32(2) • * a 7, 23, 24 s . 32(3) • • • . 7, 24 s . 33 '. '. *8, 9, 16, 22 , 23 , 24, 25 , 28, 29 , 30, 31 . . 3 3 , . 3 4 , 36, 37 , 38, 39, 4 1 , 4 2 , 46 , 50, 51 52, 53 , 54, 62, 69 s . 34 • • • • 39, 46 , 48, 50 s . 34(1) 10, 17, 18, 2 0 , 2 1 , 22, 24, 30, 33 , 38, 48 49, 57, 58, 114, 160, 161 s . 34(2) 24, 3 1 , 33, 34 s . 45 • • • 116, 118 s . 46 • • • 116, 118 s . 53 • • • . 40, 41 s . 63 42 , 117, 121, 152 s . 64(4) . • • 95 (xiv) s . 65 . . . . . . . 132, 133 s . 65(1) . . . . . . . . 58 s . 69 . . . . . . . . 94 s . 69(3) . . . . . . . . 95 s . 70 ,6V 95 , 96, 132, 135, 163 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 327 s , 70(2) . . . . . . . 164, 165 s . 71 . . . . . . . . 164 s . 72 . . . . . . . . 164 s . 79 . . . . . . 132, 133, 144 s . 80 . . . . . 10, 87 , 117 s . 81 , . , 0 . . 117V,118 s . 87 . . . . . . . . 23 s . 89 . . . . . . . . 23 s . 93 . . . . . 132, 133, 143, 144 s . 113 . . . . . . . . 94 s . 114 . . . . . . . . 94 s . 151(b) . . . . . . . . 88 Labour R e l a t i o n s : A c t , R . S . B . C . 1960 . . . 3 7 , 56, 86 s . 12(11) . . . . . . . . 54 Manitoba Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t , S . M . 1972 . . . . 91 , 94 Mediat ion Commission A c t , S . B . C . 1968 . . . . 90, 111 s . 5(1) . . . . . . . . 87 s . 11(1X2) , . . . . . 87 s . 14(7) . . . . . . . . 86 s . 15(1)(2) . . . . . . . . 87 s . 17 . . . . . . . . 87 s . 24 . . . . . . . . 87, 112 s . 24-28 . . . . . . . . 86 s . 49 . . . . . . . . 87 Mediat ion Serv ices A c t , S . B . C . 1972 . . . . 88 Ontar io C o l l e c t i v e Barga in ing A c t , S . 0 . 1943 . . . 7 8 , 79, 81 Ontar io Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t , R .S .O. 1970 . . . . 91 , 94 s . 22 . . . . . . . . 86 s . 34 . . . . . . . . 90 s . 95(1) . . . . . . . . 26 s . 9 7 . . . . . . . . 26 P u b l i c Se rv i ces Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t , S . B . C . 1973 . . . . 44 s . 26 . . . . . . . . 44 s . 101 . . . . . . . . 27 (xv) Quebec P r o f e s s i o n a l Code, R.S.Q. 1977 s . 162 . . . . . . . . 64 s . 169 . . . . . . . . 65 s . 175 . . . . . . . . 75 s . 194 . . . . . . . . 65 Trade Union A c t , R . S . S . 1953 . . . . 86 NEW ZEALAND 225, 313, 314, 313, D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments Act 1908 Economic S t a b i l i s a t i o n Act 1948 s . 3 . s . 11 . s . 11(1) s . l l ( 2 ) - ( 4 ) Commerce Act 1975 s . 119A s . 119B s . 119B(1) s . 119B.(2) s . 119B(3) s . 119C s . 119C( l ) (a ) (b ) ( c ) s . 119C(5) s . 119C(8) Commerce Amendment Act 1976 s . 36 General Wage Orders Act 1969 General Wage Orders Act 1977 s . 3 s . 6(1) s . 6(2) s . 7 I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Act 1894 187, 188, 219, 283 199, 203, 204, 207, 209, 214, 215 203 204 204 204 311, 323, 325 315, 318, 225, 316, 317, 320, 314, 317, 202, 319, 322, 323, 319, 320, 202, 226, 312, 313, 318, 321, 313, 207, 2 , 12, 169, 171, 222, 238, 282, 295, 314 321 318 315 315 325 325 319 321 328 314 207 208 208 208 208 208 172 296 (xvi) I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Amendment Act 1898 s 3 I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Amendment Act 1937 303 182 I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Act 1954 ,285, 304, 306, 307 s s . 103-108 s . 105 s . 130 s . 191 s . 192(1)(2) s . 193(1)(3) (4) s . 194 s . 195(1) s . 195(2) 189 189 189 305 305 305 306 3 0 5 , . 3 0 6 , 307 306 I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Amendment Act 1970 223, 224, 307 I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973 1, 10, 173, 205, 216, 225, 230, 239 280, 289, 304, 307, 309, 311, 314, 318 s . 2 s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . s . 2(2) 7 32 32(1) 33 37 37(2) 37(5) 40 41 42 48 48(6) 48(7) 48(1)(d) 48(5)(b) 51 52A 53(1) 53(2) 54(4) 57(1) 57(2) 62A 64 65 65(8) 67 3 , 178, 179, 182, 193, 218, 221, 222, 224, 225, 277, 308, 7, 189, 195, 219 314 182 179 174 280 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 284 285 285 174 7 7 177 177 177 175 176 176 7 216 216 195 177 (xvi i ) I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973 (Continued) s s . 67-74 s s . 67-83 s . 68 s . 68(1) s . 68(5) s . 70 s . 72 s . 72(4) s . 75 s . 76 s . 77 s . 77(3) s . 77(10) s . 81 s . 82 s . 82(4) s . 82(9) s . 83 s . 84(1) s . 84(2) s . 84(3) s . 89 s . 89(2) s . 98 s . 98A s s . 98-104 s . 115 s . 116 s . 117 s . 120 s . 123 s . 123(1) s . 123(1)(a) s . 123(1)(b) s . 123(1)(e) s . 124 s . 124A s . 124A(3) s . 125 s . 125A s . 125B s . 125C s . 125D s . 125E s . 145 s . 146 s . 148 178, 180, 183, 185, 197, 179, 182, 184, 177, 196, 197, 290, 310, 181, 182, 185, 185, 181, 193, 186, 181, 224, 224, 289, 299, 302, 303, 301, 300, 309, 2 9 0 , ' 3 1 0 , 321, 322, 323, 321, 322, 323, 321, 322, 323, 321, 322, 196 13 310 238 182 185 185 184 196 197 184 186 186 311 223 181 193 223 286 186 186 181 185 239 239 202 308 308 277 323 309 318 302 302 311 299 312 309 312 312 324 324 324 323 174 174 309 ( x v i i i ) I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973 (Continued) s . 162 s . 163(1) s . 170 s . 171 s . 173 s . 192 s . 224(1)(2) F i r s t Schedule I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Amendment Act 1975 s . 2(1) . . . . I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Amendment Act 1976 s 2 I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Amendment Act (No.2) 1976 s . 10(2) . . . . s . 20 . . . . s . 21 I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Amendment Act 1977 s . 2(1) (2) . . . . I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Amendment Act 1981 s . 9 s . 16 . . . . J u d i c a t u r e Act 1908 s . 7 . . . . s . 8 . . . . P u b l i c Sa fe ty Conservat ion Act 1932 s . 2(1) . . . . Remuneration Act 1979 s . 4 (2 ) (c ) . . . . s . 5 s . 9(1) . . . . Shop Trading Hours Act 1977 S t a b i l i s a t i o n of Remuneration Act 1971 s . 1(4) . . . . 179, 182, 238 179, 180, 238 180 180 180 180 176 290, 310, 321, 325 195 311, 318 299, 311 202, 3 1 1 , 312, 313 193 309, 312 312 229 205 321 322 321 175 175 201 206, 209, 2 1 1 , 212, 213 209, 210 206 210 208 231 203, 204 203 ( x i x ) UNITED KINGDOM B r i t i s h North America A c t , 1867 s -96 . . . . 9 , 6 5 , 66 , 67 , 69, 70, 71 Conspiracy and P r o t e c t i o n of Property Act 1875 . . . . 253 Trade Unions and Labour R e l a t i o n s Act 1974 s . 13 . . . . . . . . 287 s . 14 . . . . . . . . 287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Labor Management R e l a t i o n s A c t , 1947 s . s . s . s , s . s . s . 8 (a ) (5 ) 8(d) 158 201(a)(b) 203 204(a)(1) 206 Nat iona l I n d u s t r i a l Recovery A c t , 1933 Nat iona l Labor R e l a t i o n s A c t , 1935 75, 101, 103, 104, 129, 131 8 4 , 105, 106 102, 103, 105, 108, 123, 126, 129 125 8 3 , 94 84 84, 87 84 75, 100 1 8(d) 158 201(a)(b) 203 204(a)(1) 206 3 , 13, 72 , 73 , 74, 7 5 , 77, 78 79, 80 , 8 1 , 100, 111, 122, 126, 12S, 139 92 84 , 105, 106 102, 103, 105, 108, 123, 126, 129 125 8 3 , 94 84 84 , 87 84 Rai lway Labor A c t , 1926 74, 75 (xx) TABLE OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION CANADA Wartime Labour R e l a t i o n s Order , 1944 . . . 7 7 , 80 , 81 NEW ZEALAND Economic S t a b i l i s a t i o n Emergency Regulat ions 1942 . . . 203 Economic S t a b i l i s a t i o n (Meat P r o c e s s o r s ' , Packers ' and P r e s e r v e r s ' Award) Regulat ions 1978 . . . . 209 Economic S t a b i l i s a t i o n Regulat ions 1953 . . . . 207 Economic S t a b i l i s a t i o n (Remuneration of Sea-going Engineers) Regu lat ions 1979 . . . . 209 I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s Not ice 1954 . . . . 179 Remuneration (General Increase) Regulat ions 1979 . . . 208 Remuneration (General Increase) Regulat ions 1980 . . . 208 Remuneration (New Zealand Forest Products) Regulat ions 1980 . . 211 S t a b i l i s a t i o n of Remuneration Regulat ions 1972 . . . 203, 204 Wage Adjustment Regu lat ions 1974-1977 . . 205, 207, 208 Wage Freeze Regulat ions 1982 . . . 199, 214 Reg. 2(2) . . . . 214 Waterfront S t r i k e Emergency Regu lat ions 1951 . . . . 201 ( x x i ) TABLE OF CASES A. Acrow Ltd v Rex C h a i n b e l t Inc . (1971) 289 AHI New Zealand Glass Manufactur ing Co. Ltd v North I s land E l e c t r i c a l Re lated Trades I.U.W. (1977) . . . . 308 A lcan Smelter and A l l i e d Workers, Local No. 1 (1977) . . . 24 A l l e n v F lood e t a l . (1898) . . . . . 2 5 4 A l l i s - C h a l m e r s Mfg Co. v N . L . R . B . (1954) . . . . . 106 Amalgamated Grocers ' A s s i s t a n t s I.U.W. v Warden (1898) . . 238 American Cynamid v E th icon Ltd (1975) . . . . . 291 Anderson v Robertson (1948) 185 A n i s m i n i c v Fore ign Compensation Commission (1969) . . . 2 7 , 70 A s s o c i a t i o n o f Commercial and Techn ica l Employees, L o c a l . 1 7 2 8 and McGeer e t a l . (1978] '. '. ; 7~ 5 2 , 54 , 57 At to rney -Genera l v Smith (1950) 182, 282 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Quebec v Farrah e t a l . (1978) . . . 6 6 , 70 Auckland C l e r i c a l and O f f i c e S t a f f Employees' I.U.W. v New  Zealand Fores t Products L td (1981) • . A u s t r a l i a n Boot Trade Employees Federat ion v Whybrow & Co. (1910) : 7 ; A u s t r a l i a n Federa t ion of A i r P i l o t s v F l i g h t Crew O f f i c e r s  I n d u s t r i a l Tr i I A u s t r a l i a n Insi Co. L td (19"3TJ r ibuna l (1969-70) I surance S t a f f s A s s o c i a t i o n v A t l a s Insurance 298 . 1 7 7 , 280, 281 . 2 2 5 , 228, 246 179 A u s t r a l i a n Tramway Employees A s s o c i a t i o n v Prahan and Malvern Tramway T r u s t ; ( 1 9 1 3 ) 1 7 4 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 , 236, 237, 241 , - 2 4 2 , . 2 4 6 , 250, 258, 259 ( x x i i ) B. B a i l l i e & Co. v Reese (1907) . . . . 1 8 8 , 1 9 4 B l a c k b a l l Mines v Judge of the Court o f A r b i t r a t i o n (1908) . . 284 Blanche v McGinley (1912) 306 B l o e d e l , S t e w a r t , and Welch Ltd v S t u a r t (1943) . . . . 79 Board o f School T rustees o f School D i s t r i c t No. 39 (Vancouver) and C . U . P . E . , Local 407 (1977) i 124, 135 , 145 , 1 6 1 , 162 Bond Brothers Sawmill Ltd and I.W.A. Local 1-424 and C . L . A . C . Local 44 (1974) ; '. '. . . . 166 B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y and I .B .E .W. Local 258 and Local 213 et a l . (1976) ! ' 7 . . 154 B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y and I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Brotherhood of E l e c t r i c a l Workers, Loca ls 213 and 258 et a l . TT977) : ~ : B r i t i s h Columbia I n s t i t u t e o f Technology and B r i t i s h  Columbia Government Employees Union (1976") '. ". B r i t i s h Columbia Packers Ltd e t a l . and B r i t i s h  Columbia Counc i l Un i ted Fishermen and A l l i e d Workers  Union (1974) '. ! Brunswick Masonary C o n t r a c t o r and C o n s t r u c t i o n and General  Labourers ' Un ion , Loca ls 602 , 1070 and 1093 e t a l (T9T9) . . 58 Burwood Cinema Ltd v A u s t r a l i a n T h e a t r i c a l and Amusement Employees' A s s o c i a t i o n (1924-25) c. Caledonian C o l l i e r i e s Ltd v A u s t r a l i a n Coal & Shale  Employees Federa t ion (No. 1 ) (1930) ". ~ Camden E x h i b i t i o n D i s p l a y Ltd v Lynot t (1965) Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n o f I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and  A l l i e d Workers , Local 1 ( B r i t i s h Columbia) e t aT7~( 1974) Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n o f I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanican and . A l l i e d Workers, and Noranda Metal I n d u s t r i e s Ltd 1 , 2 , 6 , 1 1 , 1 3 , 73 (1975) 114, 120, 121 , 126, 129, 132, 135 , 142, 149', 151 4 2 , 5 1 , 53 135 . 2 4 , 26 240 225 292 36 Canadian C e l l u l o s e Co Ltd e t a l . (1976) 1 9 , 4 4 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 7 , 58 ( x x i i i ) Canadian Gypsum Co. (1954) , i n re . . . . . 36 Canex P l a c e r Ltd e t a l . (1975) 2 4 , 30 Canterbury A & P Labourers ' I n d u s t r i a l Dispute (1907) , i n re . 223 Canterbury A & P Labourers I.U.W. and Canterbury  Sheepowners' I .U .E . (1911) , i n re ~ . Canterbury Amalgamated Shop A s s i s t a n t s ' I.U.W. v Canterbury  Butchers I .U .E . (1958") 7 '. : Canterbury Slaughtermen (1907) , i n re . . . Chapman v Rendezvous Ltd (1923 Chappel l v Times Newspapers L td (1975) C h r i s t c h u r c h Un i ted Tramway e t c . I.U.W. v C h r i s t c h u r c h  Tramway Co. L td (1900] : ; . G . J . M . S . Radio Montreal L td e t a l . (1979) 223 197 301 188 292 238 7 3 , 9 0 , 96 Clancy v Butchers Shop Employees' Union (1904) 5 , 2 2 1 , 228, 230 '234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 242, 246, 247, 248, 251 , 258, 273, 276 Cominco Ltd e t a l . and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union o f Operat ing Engineers Local 115 (T9791 ' '. '. : 7 124 Cominco Pensioners Un ion , Sub-Loca l o f the Uni ted Stee l workers of A m e r i c a , Local 6 5 1 , and Cominco Ltd (1979) '. '. '. . 158 Connect i cu t Coke Co. (1934) 100 C o n s t r u c t i o n Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia e t a l . (1975) " '. : 719, 114, 132 Cory L ighterage Ltd v T ranspor t and General Workers Union (1973) 292 Corpora t ion o f the Township of Esqu imal t and C . U . P . E . Local 333 " .-(1975) : : : : 124, 132 Cozens v Brutus (1973) . . . . . 54 C r e v i e r v A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Quebec e t a l (1981) . . 6 4 , 6 9 , 71 C r o f t e r Hand Woven H a r r i s Tweed Co. e t a l v V e i t c h e t a l . (1942) ; 253 Cromwell and Bannockburn C o l l i e r y Co L t d . v Otago Board o f C o n c i l i a t i o n (1906") . . . . 1 7 9 , 222, 225 Croven Ltd and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union Un i ted Automobi le , Aerospace and A g r i c u l t u r a l Implement Workers o f America Local 1090 (1977) . 134 ( xx i v ) D. D a i l y M i r r o r Newspapers Ltd v Gardner ( 1 9 6 8 ) . D i s t r i c t 5 0 , Un i ted Mine Workers o f A m e r i c a , Local 1 3 4 9 2 v N.L.R.B. ( 1 9 B F ) ; — ~ ~ Doleman & Sons v Osset t Corpora t ion ( 1 9 1 2 ) Dominion D i r e c t o r y Company Ltd ( 1 9 7 5 ) Douds v I n t e r n a t i o n a l Longshoremen's A s s o c i a t i o n ,  Independent, e t a l . ( 1 9 5 7 ) '. . E. Emms v Brad Lovet t Ltd ( 1 9 7 3 ) 2 8 9 Emerald C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. Ltd v Lowthian ( 1 9 6 6 ) . . . . 2 9 2 F, Federated C l o t h i n g Trades o f the Commonwealth o f A u s t r a l i a v Archer ( 1 9 1 9 ) 2 2 8 , 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 , 242, 2 4 5 Federated M u n i c i p a l and S h i r e , Counci l Employees.' Union o f A u s t r a l i a v Melbourne Corpora t ion ( 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 ) '. . . . 242 Federated Seamen's Union v Sanford Ltd ( 1 9 3 0 ) . . . 2 2 8 , 2 2 9 Federated Seamen's Union v S l a u g h t e r ( 1 9 2 5 ) 3 0 0 Federa t ion of Telephone Workers of B r i t i s h Columbia and Dominion D i r e c t o r y Co Ltd (1975) '. ; 7 . . 1 2 6 F ibreboard v N . L . R . B . ( 1 9 6 4 ) . . . 1 2 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 4 0 Fleming Mfg. Co. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . . 1 0 3 , 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 3 6 Forbes , ex par te Bevan, i n re ( 1 9 7 2 ) . . . . 1 7 4 Ford Motor Co. L td v Amalgamated Union o f Eng ineer ing and Foundry Workers ( 1 9 6 8 " ) . ] \ . . 2 2 7 F o r e s t I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Ltd e t a l . v I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union of Operat ion E n g i n e e r s , Local 8 8 2 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . ~. . . 3 4 2 9 2 1 4 0 2 8 1 1 4 9 , 1 5 0 1 1 2 (xxv) 6 . Gearmatic Co. and Un i ted Stee l workers of America Local 2 5 9 2 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ~ ; . George P. P i l l i n g & Son Co. ( 1 9 3 9 ) G i l e s v M o r r i s e t a l . ( 1 9 7 2 ) Gisborne Slaughtermen ( 1 9 0 7 ) , i n re . . Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia and Reg is te red Nurses  A s s o c i a t i o n o f B r i t i s h Columbia ( 1 9 7 7 ) i n re . '. . Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and the Corpora t ion o f De l ta and C . U . P . E T Local 4 5 4 ( T 9 7 9 '. 7 H. H a i r d r e s s e r s and T o b a c c o n i s t s ' I.U.W. v E s l i c k Brothers ( 1 9 0 1 ) 1 1 7 , 1 2 4 1 0 0 2 5 6 3 0 1 4 4 1 9 2 3 8 Harder v New Zealand Tramways and P u b l i c Passenger T ranspor t A u t h o r i t i e s Employees' I.U.W. (WT) : ! 29UT292, 3 1 0 , 3 1 5 Employees H.B. C o n t r a c t i n g L td ( 1 9 7 7 ) Heal th Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n v H o s p i t a l  Union ( 1 9 7 8 " ) Highland Park Manufactur ing Co. ( 1 9 3 9 ) Hori v New Zealand Fo res t S e r v i c e ( 1 9 7 8 ) H o s p i t a l Employees U n i o n , Local 1 8 0 and Cranbrook and  D i s t r i c t H o s p i t a l and S e l k i r k Co l lege ( 1 9 7 5 1 '. . Houde Eng ineer ing Corpora t ion ( 1 9 3 4 ) Hughes Boat Workers Inc . and U.A.W. ( 1 9 8 0 ) , i n re Hughes v Northern Coal Miners Workers' I.U.W. ( 1 9 3 6 ) I. Inspector of Awards v Petone Woollen M i l l I.U.W. ( 1 9 1 6 ) Inspector o f Awards v R & W He l laby Ltd ( 1 9 3 3 ) Inspector o f Awards v Tregoweth ( 1 9 4 8 ) I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union o f Operat ing Eng ineers , Local 8 8 2 e t a l 1 2 0 , 1 5 6 4 4 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 5 8 1 0 0 3 1 9 , 3 2 2 , 3 2 3 1 5 8 1 0 0 . 2 7 , 6 2 3 0 6 F o r e s t I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n L t d . e t a l . ( 1 9 6 1 ) 3 0 1 1 8 4 3 0 0 3 7 ( xxv i ) J. J a r v i s v A s s o c i a t e d Medical S e r v i c e s Ltd (1964) . . . . 26 J o i n t Counci l o f Newspaper Unions and P a c i f i c Press Ltd (1976) . . . 41 , 5 5 , 135, 161 John I n g ! i s Co. L td and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Brotherhood of E l e c t r i c a l Workers , Local 213 (1974) : . . . . 57 Jasper Blackburn P r o d s . Corpora t ion (1940) . . . . . 100 K. Kelder C o n s t r u c t i o n Ltd (1978) 58 Kidd B r o s . Produce Ltd and Misce l laneous Workers Wholesale and R e t a i l D e l i v e r y D r i v e r s and Helpers Union Local 3bI (1976) . . . 124, 1 5 1 , 167 L. Leon Hote ls L td v Kauhausen (1979) 9 Lodum Hold ings L t d , i n re (1968) 4 6 , 56 Ladner P r i v a t e H o s p i t a l L td e t a l . and H o s p i t a l Employees' Union Local 180 (1979) ~ . . . 4 8 , 57 , 160 Ladner P r i v a t e H o s p i t a l L td e t a l . and H o s p i t a l Employees' Un ion , Local 180 (197T) ~ . . . . 124 L i g h t f o o t v Auckland B o i l e r m a k e r s ' I.U.W. (1920) . . . 300 , 303 f l , MacDonalds Conso l ida ted L t d . e t a l . and R e t a i l , Wholesale and Department Store Un ion , Local 580 (1976) '. McCawley v The King (1920) McGavin Toastmaster L td and Bakery and Confec t ionary  Workers I n t e r n a t i o n a l Un ion , Local 468 (1976) '. McMul l in Holdings Ltd v Auckland C l e r i c a l Workers'  I.U.W. (1967) Magner v Gohns (1916) 144, 161 25 45 277 . 2 2 7 , 229, 249 ( x x v i i ) Mars F ine Foods Ltd (1954) , i n re 36 M a r t i n and Robinson Ltd v Labour R e l a t i o n s Board (1954) . . 36 Medical A s s o c i a t e C l i n i c and. H o s p i t a l Employees' Union Local 180 (19791 ; ] . . . 4 5 , 46 Melbourne and M e t r o p o l i t a n Tramways Board v Horan (1967) . 228, 247 Metal I n d u s t r i e s A s s o c i a t i o n and Letson and Burpee L t d . and Uni ted Stee lworkers o f America (1977) '. '. . . . 124, 131 M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e Insurance Co. v I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union of Operat ing Engineers (1970) . . . 2 6 , 2 7 , , 2 8 , 34 Miko and Sons Logging Ltd v Penner (1976) . . . . . 24 M i s c e l l a n e o u s Workers, Wholesale and R e t a i l D e l i v e r y  D r i v e r s and Helpers Union;. . Loca l 351 and Grandview I n d u s t r i e s L td (1974) ! '. ~ . . 165 , 166 M i s c e l l a n e o u s Workers, Wholesale and R e t a i l D e l i v e r y D r i v e r s and Helpers Un ion , Local 351 and London Drugs Ltd (1974) ! 6 , 1 1 , 132, 135, 163, 165, 166, 167 Mogul Steamship Co. L td v McGregor Gow & Co. e t a l . (1892) 252, 253 , 254, 255 , 257, 260 Montgomery Ward and Co. (1941) 100 Morgan v Fry_ (1968) . . . . 289, 306 N. Nauru Local Government Counci l v New Zealand Seamen's I.U.W. and Others (1982) 292 New Zealand Bank O f f i c e r s I.U.W. v A . N . Z . Banking 5 , 2 2 1 , 224, 226, 229 Group Ltd (1979) 233 , 234, 236, 237, 251 , 260, 272, 275, .278, 327 New Zealand Dai ry F a c t o r i e s and Re lated Trades Employees' I.U.W. v New Zealand C o - o p e r a t i v e Dai ry Co. (1959) ~ . . 256 New Zealand Eng ineer ing e t c . I.U.W. v Court o f A r b i t r a t i o n (1976) . . . . . 285 New Zealand Eng ineer ing Union and Shor t lanu F reez ing Co. L td (1973) . . . . . . 298 ( x x v i i i ) New Zealand Federated C l e r i c a l and O f f i c e S t a f f Employees I .A.W. v W e l l i n g t o n Law P r a c t i t i o n e r s I .U .E . (1980) 1 9 1 , 193 , 2 2 1 , 260 271 , 274, 275 , 286, 316, 327, 328, 329, 331 New Zealand Federated Labourers e t c . I.U.W. v Tynda l l and Others (1964) . 284 New Zealand Government Rai lways Department v New Zealand Merchant S e r v i c e G u i l d I.U.W. (1982) . . . . . 323 New Zealand Meat P r o c e s s o r s ' e t c . I.U.W. (1964) . . . 184, 185 New Zealand Waters ide Workers' Federa t ion I .A.W. v F razer (1924) N . F . L . D . A s s o c i a t i o n o f P u b l i c Employees and  Carbonear General H o s p i t a l (1978) N . L . R . B . v Adams Dai ry (1965) N . L . R . B . v J . H . A l l i s o n & Co. N . L . R . B . v American Insurance Co. 188, 223, 228, 281 , 284 34 140 138 109, 125 107, N . L . R . B . v Borg-Warner Corpora t ion (1958) 3 , 9 8 , 9 9 , 101 , 102, 103, 104 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113, 117, 120, 122, 123 , 125 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 , 136, 137, 138, 139, 141 , 142, 143 N . L . R . B . v Cors i cana Cotton M i l l s 106 N . L . R . B . v D a r l i n g t o n Veneer Co. 106 N . L . R . B . v Hart Cotton M i l l s Inc . (1951) 103 N . L . R . B . v Insurance Agents I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union A . F . L . - C . I . O . (1960) 129 N . L . R . B . v Jones and Laugh! in S tee l Corpora t ion (1937) . . 7 4 , 138 N . L . R . B . v Magnavox Co. (1974) 110 N . L . R . B . v N i les -Bement -Pond Co. (1952) 103 N.M.U. (Texas Co. ) (1948) 110 ( xx i x ) 0 . Otago C l e r i c a l Workers Award, i n re (1937) 182 O t i s E l e v a t o r Co. Ltd v I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union of E l e v a t o r C o n s t r u c t o r s , Local 82 (1973) . . 8 6 , 112, 113, 114 O t i s E l e v a t o r Co. Ltd and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union o f E l e v a t o r C o n s t r u c t o r s , Local 82 (1974) . . . . 153, 155 P. P a c i f i c G i l l n e t t e r s A s s o c i a t i o n e t a l . and B r i t i s h Columbia C o u n c i l , Uni ted Workers' Union (1979) . . . 124, 133 P a r k h i l l F u r n i t u r e and Bedding Ltd v I n t e r n a t i o n a l Moulders Union (196T1 56 Performing Right S o c i e t y v M i t c h e l l and Booker ( P a l a i s de Danse) Ltd~U924") . . . . 220, 257 P e t e ' s Towing S e r v i c e s L t d . v Northern D r i v e r s ' I.U.W. 119707 T . . . 288, 304 P h i l i p Carey Mfg Co. (1963) 110 P i t t s b u r g h P l a t e Glass Co. (1969) 119 Pruden v Assessment A u t h o r i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia (1976) . - 4 0 , 4 1 , 42 4 3 , 4 4 , 4 6 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 5 0 , 5 5 , 5 7 , 6 0 , 61 Pullman T r a i l m o b i l e Canada Ltd and M i s c e l l a n e o u s  Workers Wholesale and R e t a i l D e l i v e r y D r i v e r s ' and H e l p e r s ' Un ion , Local 351 (1979) T . . . . 124 Pulp and Paper I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Bureau and . 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 1 3 , 73 Canadian Paperworkers Union (1978) 9 7 , 109, 114, 115 , 1 2 1 , 123, 124 125, 129, 131 , 135, 137, 141, 142, 146, 148, 149, 150, 161 , 162, 163 Pulp and Paper I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Bureau and P u l p , Paper and Woodworkers o f Canada e t a l . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . . . 124 Q. Quinn v Leathern (1901) 2 5 3 , 254, 257 (xxx) R. K v Commonwealth C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Commissioner, ex par te Melbourne and M e t r o p o l i t a n Tramways Board (1962) (1965) (1966) : 7 . . 2 2 1 , 247 R. y Commonwealth Court o f C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n ex par te Whybrow (1910) \ ; . . . 223 R. v Commonwealth I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t , ex parte Cocks (1908) . . 245 R v G a l l a g h e r , ex parte Aberdare C o l l i e r i e s Pty Ltd (1963) . . 177 R. v G r a z i e r s A s s o c i a t i o n o f New South Wales, ex parte A.W.U. (1956) : ! ; . . . 223 v Hamilton K n i g h t , ex par te The Commonwealth Steamship Owners' A s s o c i a t i o n (1952) . . . 228, 235, 243 R v K e l l y , ex parte S t a t e of V i c t o r i a (1950) . . 228, 2 3 1 , 242, 246 R v Labour R e l a t i o n s Board ( O n t . ) , ex parte Nor. E l e c . Co. (1970) ! . . . . . 26 R_ v P o r t u s , ex par te A . N . Z . Banking Group Ltd (1972) . 2 2 8 , . 2 3 0 , 246, 248 Racal Communications Ltd ( 1 9 8 0 ) , i n re . . . . . 2 1 , .27 Rooks v Barnard (1964) . . . . . 289 Ross v Moston (1917) 301 Ruddock v S i n c l a i r (1925) 306 s. Scandore Paper Box Co. (1938) 100 Schechter P o u l t r y C o r p o r a t i o n v Uni ted S t a t e s (1935) . . . 74 S c o t t v Avery (1856) 281 S h e l l O i l C o . , i n re . . . . . 106 Squamis.h Terminals Ltd and Canadian Stevedor ing Co. L td and Pulp and Paper Workers o f Canada, Local 3 (19751 . . . 45 S t r a t f o r d and Son L td v L i n d l e y (1965) . . . 2 8 9 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 2 Strong v L. Bava & Co. L td (1960) 194 Synd ica t General de l a Radio e t a l . (1979) 6 , 133 , 164, 167, 168 ( xxx i ) T. T a y l o r and Oakley v Edwards J . (1900) Te Mi ha v Dunlop (N .Z . ) Ltd (1975) 180, 194, 227, 228, 229, 279 300, 301 Texas and New Orleans Rai lway Co. v Brotherhood o f  Rai lway C l e r k s (19301 The Globe and Mai l Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin (1952) Tomko v Labour R e l a t i o n s Board (Nova S c o t i a ) e t a l (1975) Toronto E l e c t r i c Commissioners v Sn ider (1925) Toronto Newspaper G u i l d v Globe P r i n t i n g Co. (1953) Torquay Hotel Co. v Cousins (1969) T ranspor t Labour R e l a t i o n s and General Truck  D r i v e r s (1976) . Turner v Mason (1945) U. .U..M.W. v Pennington (1965) Uni ted S tee l workers of A m e r i c a , Local 6535 and  C a s s i a r Asbestos Corpora t ion (1974) . Uni ted Stee l workers o f A m e r i c a , Local 1005 v Stee l Co. of Canada Ltd (194T) ~ . V . Vancouver I s land P u b l i s h i n g Co. L td and Vancouver  Typographical Un ion , Local 226 (1976) '. . w. W e l l i n g t o n Hotel e t c . Employees' I.U.W. v A t t o r n e y -G e n e r a l , ex r e l J u s t (195T) " '. 7 Wei 1 ington M u n i c i p a l O f f i c e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n ( Inc . ) v W e l l i n g t o n C i t y Co rpora t ion (1951) ; . 74 169 292 6 5 , 66 76 , 79 26 289, 292 4 1 , 5 7 , 61 220, 257 110 143, 161 79 132, 135, 163 282, 283 283 (xxxi i ) W e l l i n g t o n Performing M u s i c i a n s ' Award (1912) , i n re Western Wholesale Drug Ltd v R e t a i l Wholesale and  Department Store U n i o n , Local 580 (1971 ) '. . Westinghouse E l e c t r i c Corpora t ion (1965) Westinghouse E l e c t r i c Co rpora t ion v N . L . R . B . (1967) Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. (1949) Whitwood Chemical Co. v Hardman (1891) Wholesale and R e t a i l D e l i v e r y D r i v e r s Union and  London Drugs Ltd (1974) 7 Wilson and Horton Ltd v Hur le (1951) Windsor Raceway Hold ings Ltd and Windsor Raceway  Un ion , Local 639 et a l 7 (1 979) ~ . Workmen's Compensation Board Employees e t a l . (1974) Y. 184 8 6 , 111 , 112 140 120 103 256 96 228, 237 28 38 Yewens v Noaks (1880) 220, 257 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express my indebtedness to Pro fessor Don McRae, of the F a c u l t y of Law and past D i r e c t o r of the Graduate Programme, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r the i n v a l u a b l e e d i t o r i a l i n s t r u c t i o n he gave me w h i l s t I was r e s i d e n t at the U n i v e r s i t y as a graduate student (1978-79) . This t h e s i s i s the much improved f o r i t . My s incere thanks go a l s o to Mrs. E. Dobson, who d i d a wonderful job p u t t i n g the p ieces together i n t yp ing t h i s t h e s i s . I. INTRODUCTION "We do not believe in strikes as a negotiating .weapon. We believe in arbitration as the ultimate answer". per the R t . Hon. W.E. Rowling Newsmakers, T e l e v i s i o n One, New Zea land , 18 J u l y , 1980. "The theory of the Code is that each side in collective bargaining is entitled to adopt the contract proposals which are in its own interest, to stick firmly to its bargaining positions, and then to rely on its economic strength in a strike to force the other side to make the concessions". per the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board , Noranda Metal  I n d u s t r i e s [1975] 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 145, a t 159. This t h e s i s examines the p o l i c i e s f a c i l i t a t i n g i n t e r e s t d i spu te se t t lement i n B r i t i s h Columbia and New Zea land , under the Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia 1973^ and the I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Apparent from the o u t s e t i s tha t what one s t a t u t e accepts as expedient and d e s i r a b l e i n matters o f i n t e r e s t d i spu te s e t t l e m e n t , the other r e j e c t s . The study i s p r i n c i p a l l y , t h e r e f o r e , a comparative one, f o c u s s i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r on the B r i t i s h Columbia reforms of 1973-74. Whereas New Zealand 's i n d u s t r i a l system has remained u n a l t e r e d i n e s s e n t i a l respects 1 S . B . C . 1973, c . 122, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as "the Code" or "the Labour Code". "The Board" r e f e r s to the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board. 2 . s i n c e the f i r s t I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n s t a t u t e o f 1894, B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1973 adopted an approach to i n t e r e s t d i spu te se t t l ement t h a t i s today a p a t h f i n d e r f o r North Amer ica . No longer can B r i t i s h Columbia c l a i m the dubious d i s t i n c t i o n of having "the worst [ labour r e l a t i o n s ] record by f a r of any i n Canada", as i t 3 was reputed to have i n 1973. The reforms i n s t i t u t e d a t tha t time were a comprehensive response to the f a i l i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia o f post -war Canadian labour p o l i c y : t h a t i s , c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g coupled w i t h s t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n through c o n c i l i a t i o n and i n v e s t i g a t i o n of labour d i s p u t e s . ^ The s o l e emphasis hencefor th was to be on the fo rmer , f r e e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , as the mechanism f o r r e s o l v i n g i n t e r e s t d i s p u t e s . T h i s , as the body r e s p o n s i b l e f o r deve lop ing the requirements of good f a i t h b a r g a i n i n g under the Labour Code has r e i t e r a t e d , reproves o f r i g i d standards of ba rga in ing conduct imposed on p a r t i e s by an e x t e r n a l t r i b u n a l . Thus the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board has c o n s i s t e n t l y d i s c l a i m e d the j u r i s d i c t i o n to eva lua te the s u b s t a n t i v e p o s i t i o n s o f each p a r t y , i n s i s t i n g tha t i t i s f o r the p a r t i e s themselves " to work out t h e i r own boundary l i n e s between the area o f mutual agreement and the area of u n i l a t e r a l a c t i o n , whether the a c t i o n be taken by the employer or the u n i o n . . . ' . 1 . 2 I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Act 1894. 3 BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) (Th i rd S e s s i o n ) , a t 442 per D.A. Anderson (Member f o r V i c t o r i a ) . 4 See Chapter I I I . THE EVOLUTION OF CANADIAN LABOUR POLICY AND THE  BRITISH COLUMBIA REFORMS, i n f r a . 5 Pulp and Paper I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Bureau and Canadian Paperworkers  Union [1978J 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 6 0 , a t 79 per the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board , analysed i n Chapter IV. THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY  IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: THE AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE REJECTED, i n f r a . See a l s o Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanican and A l l i e d Workers,  and Noranda Metal I n d u s t r i e s Ltd LI975J 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 145. 3 . This s i g n a l s the f i r s t o f three fundamental d i f f e r e n c e s t h i s t h e s i s examines between the B r i t i s h Columbia and New Zealand labour systems. Whereas B r i t i s h Columbia renounces any j u r i s d i c t i o n a l f e t t e r on what may or may not c o n s t i t u t e an i n t e r e s t d i spu te between management, and u n i o n , c e n t r a l to the New Zealand I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n system i s the l e g a l concept of " d i s p u t e " ^ which (through j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the term o " i n d u s t r i a l mat te rs " to which the concept of " d i s p u t e " r e f e r s ) determines the p e r m i s s i b l e sub jec ts o f i n d u s t r i a l r e g u l a t i o n i n New Zea land . For those f a m i l i a r w i t h the l e g a l c o n t r o l s a t t a c h i n g to c a t e g o r i e s of b a r g a i n i n g -g s u b j e c t i n the Uni ted S t a t e s , tha t the s t a t e exe r t s some measure o f c o n t r o l over the s u b j e c t s o f b a r g a i n i n g i n New Zealand may not i t s e l f be so s u r p r i s i n g ; i n New Zealand i t i s the ex tent o f c o n t r o l d i r e c t l y a s s e r t e d by the s t a t e t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s New Zea land 's I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n system. Reference below to the Un i ted S ta tes Nat iona l Labor -R e l a t i o n s Act i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s . ^ Although r e s e r v i n g to i t s e l f some degree of c o n t r o l over the range o f sub jec ts f o r b a r g a i n i n g , the s t a t e ' s presence i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g under t h i s s t a t u t e i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s pronounced than under the New Zealand i n d u s t r i a l s t a t u t e . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the p r e c e d e n t - s e t t i n g d e c i s i o n o f the B r i t i s h Columbia Board i n Pulp and Paper  Bureau ( 1 9 7 7 ) , ^ examined below, i s tha t not even t h a t degree of c o n t r o l which the s t a t e e x e r c i s e s over the substance of b a r g a i n i n g i n the Uni ted S ta tes was acceptab le to the B r i t i s h Columbia Board. 6 But c f . , Chapter IV, P a r t D, The P o s s i b i l i t y of Subs tant i ve L i m i t a t i o n s . 7 Def ined by the I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973, s . 2 (quoted i n f r a , P a r t I I ) . 8 Def ined by the I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973, s . 2 (quoted i n f r a , P a r t I I ) . 9 Countenanced by the Supreme Court i n N . L . R . B . v Borg-Warner C o r p o r a t i o n , 365 U.S. 342 (1958) , d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter IV, i n f r a . 10 I b i d . 11 Supra , note 5 . 4. I n e v i t a b l y , t h i s pa r t o f the comparison o f the two systems i s about management's p r e r o g a t i v e s , or " reserved r i g h t s " . Given the wholesa le r e j e c t i o n o f l e g a l c o n s t r a i n t s on b a r g a i n i n g sub jec ts under the B r i t i s h 12 Columbia Code, i t would seem that the l e g a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r management's " reserved r i g h t s " have g iven way i n B r i t i s h Columbia to a" more urgent need f o r pragmatic accommodation o f management-union d i f f e r e n c e s . Such i s not the case under New Zea land 's c o n c i l i a t i o n and a r b i t r a t i o n s t a t u t e . Through e a r l y j u d i c i a l a n t i p a t h y towards the s t a t e ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n coupled w i t h the r o l e o f p recedent , the l e g i s l a t i o n i s today embued wi th the common law approach to managerial p r e r o g a t i v e : p e r s o n i f i e d by the common law c o n t r a c t o f s e r v i c e and the not ion o f sovere ign a u t h o r i t y which the common law borrowed from the t r a d i t i o n a l m a s t e r - s e r v a n t model . Par t II examining the New Zealand system does not defend t h i s pe rcept ion of management-union r e l a t i o n s . As ide the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f the market c o n d i t i o n s which once may have commended t h i s p e r c e p t i o n , opposing i t are a l l the l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s reasons which compel led the B r i t i s h Columbia Board to r e j e c t the American 13 j u r i s p r u d e n c e . P a r t I having examined t h e s e , Par t II concent rates on the f u r t h e r arguments tha t can be made on l e g a l and economic grounds f o r the a b o l i t i o n of the l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n i n New Zealand o f management's p r e r o g a t i v e s . Notwi thstanding some e i g h t decades of i n d u s t r i a l development i n New Zealand s ince the i n i t i a l A c t , the ques t ion s t i l l to be pondered i s t h i s : d i d the e a r l y c o u r t s see i t to be t h e i r f u n c t i o n to disavow i n p a r t the s t a t u t o r y language o f I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n ? Were the few judges who 12 But c f . , the c a u t i o n expressed i n Chapter IV, P a r t D (noted s u p r a , note 6 ) . 13 See i n p a r t i c u l a r Chapter IV, i n f r a . 5. i n i t i a l l y r e c e i v e d the l e g i s l a t i o n s imply d i s c h a r g i n g the usual f u n c t i o n s of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , or were they i n t r u t h pursu ing some concept ion o f the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t i e d to l a s t c e n t u r y ' s p o l i t i c a l economy? Submitted below i s tha t these e a r l y a u t h o r i t i e s f i x i n g the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l scope of I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n were tempered not by P a r l i a m e n t ' s d e f i n i t i o n s but r a t h e r by t h e i r own need to c u r t a i l l e g i s l a t i o n aimed a t s u p p l a n t i n g the employer 's freedom of c o n t r a c t i n employment r e l a t i o n s by a system of s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n o f labour d i s p u t e s . The l e a d i n g a u t h o r i t y i s a 1904 d e c i s i o n o f the High Court o f A u s t r a l i a . 1 4 Despi te the a n t i q u i t y of t h i s d e c i s i o n , i t s paramount importance today i s undoubted; i n two recent d e c i s i o n s of the New Zealand A r b i t r a t i o n Court (the body i n v e s t e d wi th the o v e r a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the New Zealand labour r e l a t i o n s system) the Court r u l e d the matters i n i s s u e to be n o n - n e g o t i a b l e by the unions 15 s o l e l y on the s t r e n g t h of what t h i s 1904 d e c i s i o n e s t a b l i s h e d . This prefaces the second c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between the B r i t i s h Columbia and New Zealand labour systems: the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e versus the j u d i c i a l s o l u t i o n to labour d i s p u t e s . In Pulp and Paper Bureau the B r i t i s h Columbia Board i ssued t h i s warn ing : "The wrong method i s to r e l y on r i g i d c o n t r o l s , admin i s te red by an ex te rna l t r i b u n a l , w i th the r i s k t h i s poses that the ebb and f low o f the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g regime might be f rozen i n t o the c u r r e n t l y convent iona l p a t t e r n " . ^ The p o l i c y u n d e r l y i n g the Board 's warning i s t h a t i t i s f o r the p a r t i e s themselves to determine 14 Clancy v Butchers Shop Employees Union (1904) 1 C . L . R . 181 (H .C .A . ) examined i n Par t I I . 15 The New Zealand Bank O f f i c e r s I.U.W. v ANZ Banking Group Ltd I.e. 71/77; New Zealand Federated C l e r i c a l and O f f i c e S t a f f Employees I.A.W. v W e l l i n g t o n Law P r a c t i t i o n e r s I.U.W., A . C . 101/80, D . I . 66/80. 16 Supra , note 5 , a t 80 . 6 . accord ing to t h e i r r e l a t i v e economic s t rengths what i s a f a i r and p o l i t i c s e t t l e m e n t , ^ and to deny a par ty the product of h i s s u p e r i o r b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n i s to cour t resentment , i n d u s t r i a l p r o t e s t , and u l t i m a t e l y l o s s of I o conf idence i n the i n d u s t r i a l system i t s e l f . The B r i t i s h Columbia Board no longer has a monopoly over t h i s p o l i c y . "Who, i f not the p a r t i e s " , asked the Canada Labour R e l a t i o n s Board r e c e n t l y , "has i n t i m a t e knowledge of the d e t a i l s 19 and s p e c i f i c s o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n s ? " With expressed deference to the B r i t i s h Columbia p o l i c y , t h i s Board e x p l a i n e d : " I t i s t h i s knowledge which i s the key to compromise, c o n c e s s i o n s , qu id pro q u o ' s , exchanges and horse t r a d i n g s u c c e s s f u l enough to produce a se t t lement which s a t i s f i e s everyone to such a degree tha t p roduct ion can cont inue and even inc rease f o r the b e n e f i t of the company and the p a r t n e r s h i p o f employers and employees who work i n i t " . 2 0 The New Zealand p o l i c y prov ides a s t a r k c o n t r a s t . Whereas B r i t i s h Columbia and i t s f e l l o w j u r i s d i c t i o n s p r e f e r the f l e x i b l e procedures of the permanently c o n s t i t u t e d board ( i n o r d e r , t h a t i s , to .maximise the p o t e n t i a l 21 f o r "compromise, c o n c e s s i o n s , qu id pro q u o ' s , . . . " ) New Zealand r e l i e s p r e -eminent ly on j u d i c i a l c o n t r o l o f labour d i s p u t e s . A labour r e l a t i o n s system which p i v o t s on a s t r i c t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l requirement f i x i n g the scope o f i n d u s t r i a l r e g u l a t i o n must i n e v i t a b l y bequeath the f u n c t i o n o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to an a d j u d i c a t i v e body i n order to determine which b a r g a i n i n g 17 See e . g . , M i s c e l l a n e o u s Workers, Wholesale and R e t a i l D e l i v e r y D r i ve rs  and Helpers Un ion , Local 351 and London Drugs Ltd LI974j 1 Can L . R . B . R . 140, a t 143 (the Board f o r t h i s reason c o u n s e l l i n g c a u t i o n i n a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r f i r s t - c o n t r a c t a r b i t r a t i o n s under s e c t i o n 70 o f the Labour Code). See Chapter IV, P a r t D. 18 See g e n e r a l l y , Noranda, s u p r a , note 5 ; Pulp and Paper Bureau, s u p r a , note 5 . 19 Synd ica t General de l a Radio e t a l . [1979] 1 Can L . R . B . R . 332, a t 371. 20 I b i d . 21 I b i d . 7. demands comply w i t h the A c t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l requi rement . In New Zealand 22 that body i s the A r b i t r a t i o n Cour t , i t s e l f a des ignated Court of Record , 23 a l b e i t s u b j e c t to the review powers o f the High Court and subord inate to 24 the New Zealand Court o f Appeal on matters o f law. In c o n t r a s t , a l s o to the p o s i t i o n under the B r i t i s h Columbia s t a t u t e , the general j u r i s d i c t i o n of the New Zealand cour ts i s preserved w i th respec t to t o r t s committed i n fu r therance o f labour d i s p u t e s , which has seen i n recent t imes i n t e r l o c u t o r y 25 i n j u n c t i o n s e n j o i n i n g labour unions engaging i n i n d u s t r i a l a c t i o n . P r i o r to 1973 the labour i n j u n c t i o n was a l s o commonplace i n B r i t i s h Columbia. But now, i n one l i m i t e d r e s p e c t on ly does the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour Code 27 preserve the general j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the s u p e r i o r cour ts i n labour m a t t e r s . Of the J u d i c i a r y ' s b a s i c i n a b i l i t y to r e s o l v e management-union d i f f e r e n c e s , the M i n i s t e r of Labour i n 1973 e x p l a i n e d : 22 See the I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973, s . 3 2 ( l ) . 23 See s . 4 8 ( 5 ) ( b ) o f the A c t , e x p r e s s l y p r e s e r v i n g the s u p e r v i s o r y j u r i s d i c t i o n of the s u p e r i o r c o u r t s to c o r r e c t excess o f j u r i s d i c t i o n on the par t o f the A r b i t r a t i o n Cour t . Cont ras t P a r t I, Chapter II examining the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s attempt i n B r i t i s h Columbia to exc lude even t h i s r e s i d u a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the s u p e r i o r cour ts to rev iew on grounds o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l e r r o r . 24 See the I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973, s .51 ( A r b i t r a t i o n Court may s t a t e a case f o r the New Zealand Court o f Appeal on quest ions o f law) and s . 62A ( p r e s e r v i n g appeals to the Court o f Appeal on p o i n t s of l a w ) . 25 See i n f r a , P a r t I I , V I I . JUDICIAL CONTROL OF LABOUR DISPUTES. . 26 For acknowledgement tha t there was " a t one time a b l i z z a r d of i n j u n c t i o n s " e n j o i n i n g labour unions i n B r i t i s h Columbia , see BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) (Th i rd S e s s i o n ) , a t 444 per G .S . Wal lace (Member f o r Oak Bay ) . 27 See the Labour Code, s . 3 2 ( 2 ) ( 3 ) , d i s c u s s e d i n f r a , I I . PERFECTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTION. 8 . The cour ts of law can on ly r e a l l y catch a gl impse o f the o v e r a l l labour p i c t u r e . The i r i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the past has been sporad ic and f o r t u i t o u s . The judges l a c k the i n t i m a t e knowledge o f i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s and c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . For these r e a s o n s . . . t h e  new labour code has removed the c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n  over labour d i s p u t e s . . . T h e new law seeks an  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r a t h e r than a j u d i c i a l s o l u t i o n to  labour disputes"7ZE In c o n t r a s t i n g t h i s f a c e t o f the B r i t i s h Columbia Code wi th the New Zealand s t a t u t e , Chapter II concent rates on the language the Code uses i n seeking to exc lude the c o u r t s . As apparent above, f o r the Labour Code to seek "an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r a t h e r than a j u d i c i a l s o l u t i o n to labour d i s p u t e s " 29 i s not n o v e l ; what does d i s t i n g u i s h B r i t i s h Columbia i s tha t i t has gone f u r t h e r than any o ther j u r i s d i c t i o n i n Canada i n a t tempt ing to p e r f e c t the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s o l u t i o n . " [ N ] o v e l , c o n t r o v e r s i a l , and arguably u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " i s how one commentator d e s c r i b e d the c r i t i c a l p r o v i s i o n , 30 s e c t i o n 33. A g a i n s t the background of j u d i c i a l d isobedience to the p r i v a t i v e c lause i n the labour s t a t u t e i n Canada, t h i s p r o v i s i o n expresses the c l e a r e s t l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t to depr ive s u p e r i o r - cour ts of the a b i l i t y to wrest j u r i s d i c t i o n from the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e board . The view advocated below i s tha t d e s p i t e a d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e power i n Canada consonant w i th f e d e r a l i s m the i n h e r i t e d no t ion o f l e g i s l a t i v e supremacy i s s t i l l the c a r d i n a l 28 BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) (Th i rd S e s s i o n ) , a t 399-400 (emphasis added) . 29 The i n i t i a l post -war reforms e s t a b l i s h i n g the permanent labour board i n Canada e n t r u s t e d boards wi th s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same powers and a d m i n i - . s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as those possessed today under labour s t a t u t e s : see g e n e r a l l y , H.D. Woods, Labour P o l i c y i n Canada, (2nd e d . , 1973) . 30 H.W. A r t h u r s , "The D u l l e s t B i l l " : R e f l e c t i o n s on the Labour Code o f B r i t i s h Columbia (1974) ,9 U . B . C . L . R . 280, a t 326. 9. p r i n c i p l e o f the Canadian p o l i t i c a l system, such t h a t the general r e l a t i o n -sh ip o f the cour ts to the l e g i s l a t u r e i s one commanding j u d i c i a l obedience to the p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e . The p o l i c y advocated t h e n , i s t h a t prov ided the l e g i s l a t u r e expresses c l e a r l y i t s i n t e n t to d i v e s t cour ts of t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r y j u r i s d i c t i o n , the j u d g e ' s f i r s t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l duty must be to 32 abide by, not d isavow, the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n s t r u c t i o n . The c o n c l u s i o n reached i s t h a t the Code does indeed express i t s i n t e n t c l e a r l y . Yet a number o f arguments can be a n t i c i p a t e d on the par t of cour ts i n support o f the p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t . Four are examined below. A f u r t h e r two, i n v o l v i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l cha l lenges to the Board 's j u r i s d i c t i o n , are p e c u l i a r to the a l l o c a t i o n o f f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l powers i n Canada and w i l l not be 33 examined. The f i r s t i s based on the p r o p o s i t i o n tha t there i s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t of access to the cour ts f o r purposes o f s e c u r i n g j u d i c i a l review of i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l s . The second i s t h a t the Board 's expansive s e c t i o n 33 j u r i s d i c t i o n (namely, to d e f i n e the ex tent o f the Board 's j u r i s d i c t i o n ) i s , when e x e r c i s e d , a f u n c t i o n analogous to tha t o f a " s e c t i o n 96" c o u r t , thus v i o l a t i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirement f o r federa l appointment of judges . Doubtless i t i s s imply a matter o f time before both arguments are j u d i c i a l l y 34 t e s t e d i n Canada. U n t i l t h e n , however, there i s l i t t l e to be gained from rehears ing them below; not on ly are these c o n s t i t u t i o n a l arguments s p e c i a l to Canada, i n v o l v i n g matters ex te rna l to the general r e l a t i o n s h i p o f c o u r t s to the 31 See p a r t i c u l a r l y Bora L a s k i n ' s emphatic views on t h i s m a t t e r ; L a s k i n , C e r t i o r a r i to Labour Boards: The Apparent F u t i l i t y o f the P r i v a t i v e  C l a u s e , 30 Can. B. Rev. 986 (1952) . 32 See f u r t h e r L a s k i n , i b i d , admonishing cour ts f o r d isavowing t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l duty to abide by the p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e . 33 But . see now I IA . PERFECTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTION - POSTSCRIPT. 34 Indeed, f o r j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l quest ions under l y ing the Code's j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s , see Leon Hote ls Ltd v Kauhausen (1979) 79 C . L . L . C . para 1 5 , 198 ( B . C . S . C . ) , per F u l t o n J . See i b i d . 10. a d m i n i s t r a t i v e board , but a l s o the j u r i s p r u d e n c e on which they are based has 35 been examined e lsewhere . Of the remaining f o u r tha t are examined, these are germane to the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s o l u t i o n to labour d i s p u t e s and the i n g e n u i t y o f cour ts to wrest j u r i s d i c t i o n from the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l . Notwi thstand ing an obvious d r a f t i n g d e f e c t i n one o f the Code's j u r i s d i c t i o n a l 36 p r o v i s i o n s , the c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t on ly by d i s c l a i m i n g the r u l e o f j u d i c i a l obedience cou ld cour ts r e s u r r e c t j u r i s d i c t i o n from the Code and , to t h a t end, compromise the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e approach to labour problems. I t s u f f i c e s to add t h a t these i s s u e s do not a r i s e under the New Zealand I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Ac t 1973; the o b j e c t of which i s to f a c i l i t a t e , not p revent , j u d i c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n . A separate chapter i n Par t II r e v e a l s the ex tent to which the New Zealand c o n c i l i a t i o n and a r b i t r a t i o n system i s r e l i a n t on j u d i c i a l p rocedures . A l so i n c l u d e d i s a chapter on the l e g a l i t y o f s t r i k e s and lockouts under the New Zealand s t a t u t e . This p o i n t s to the t h i r d fundamental d i f f e r e n c e between the two j u r i s d i c t i o n s . B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1973 recognised i t to be an e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n of the Code's p o l i c y , the f o s t e r i n g o f f r e e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , t h a t p a r t i e s be not s imply a t l i b e r t y but indeed encouraged to r e s o r t to the economic s a n c t i o n as a means of compe l l ing agreement. Prov ided c e r t a i n p r e r e q u i s i t e s are s a t i s f i e d (most 37 n o t a b l y , t h a t p a r t i e s have engaged i n good f a i t h b a r g a i n i n g ) : 35 36 37 A r t h u r s , s u p r a , note 3 0 , a t 3 2 9 - 3 9 . Namely s . 3 4 ( l ) . The Code, s . 8 0 ( a ) . 1 1 . "The theory of the Code i s tha t each s i d e i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g i s e n t i t l e d . . . t o s t i c k f i r m l y to i t s b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s , and then to r e l y on i t s economic s t r e n g t h . . . t o f o r c e the o ther s i d e to make the c o n c e s s i o n s . . . T h e assumption i s tha t ac tua l exper ience of the harm caused by [a s t r i k e or l o c k o u t ] w i l l l ead one or both p a r t i e s to r e a l i z e t h a t the cos ts of agreement are not q u i t e so d i s t a s t e f u l " . 3 8 As t h i s statement of the Board i n d i c a t e s , the l e g i t i m a c y of the economic s a n c t i o n i s fundamental to the Code's p o l i c y o f f r e e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g -" [ the economic s a n c t i o n ] i s a necessary c o n s t i t u e n t of c o l l e c t i v e 39 b a r g a i n i n g " - such t h a t i t does not r e q u i r e separate t reatment below. By comparison the New Zealand l e g i s l a t i o n i s much l e s s o b l i g i n g w i th i t s more complex t reatment o f s t r i k e s and l o c k o u t s . What w i l l become apparent , however, i s tha t the Code's assumpt ion , t h a t u n i l a t e r a l a c t i o n i s the most e f f i c i e n t means o f b reak ing the b a r g a i n i n g impasse (and i s t h e r e f o r e to be encouraged), i s the a n t i t h e s i s of c o n c i l i a t i o n and a r b i t r a t i o n of labour d i s p u t e s . Given the formal r o l e c o n c i l i a t i o n and a r b i t r a t i o n reserves to the s t a t e : "We do not b e l i e v e i n s t r i k e s as a n e g o t i a t i n g weapon. We b e l i e v e i n a r b i t r a t i o n as the u l t i m a t e answer" .40 38 Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n o f I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanican and A l l i e d Workers, and  Noranda Metal I n d u s t r i e s Ltd LI975J 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 145, a t 159 per the Board. 39 London Drugs e t a l . , s u p r a , note 1 7 , a t 143 per the Board. 40 Per the Hon. W.E .Rowl ing , Leader o f the O p p o s i t i o n , Newsmakers, T e l e v i s i o n One, New Z e a l a n d , 18 J u l y 1980. The statement was not tempered by par ty p o l i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Consider e . g . , the M i n i s t e r of Labour 's warning to the unions i n v o l v e d i n the K i n l e i t h s toppage, the d i spu te which prompted Mr. Rowl ing 's comment: "[T]he Government has made i t c l e a r tha t i t w i l l not accept l a r g e wage se t t lements 'ga ined as a r e s u l t o f s t r i k e a c t i o n 1 . . . i t should be remembered t h a t the proposed se t t lement has been reached a f t e r a prolonged p e r i o d of i n d u s t r i a l a c t i o n . 'A seven-week s t r i k e i s not i n the Government's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of f r e e wage b a r g a i n i n g . . . ' " ; Comment from the C a p i t a l , C h r i s t c h u r c h P r e s s , 3 March, 1980. 12. By and l a r g e t h i s i s the psychology the law i n New Zealand endorses . To tha t extent a r b i t r a t i o n i s f o r New Zealand what s t r i k e s and lockouts are f o r B r i t i s h Columbia , thus p o i n t i n g to the o v e r r i d i n g d i f f e r e n c e i n ph i losophy between the two systems: b i - l a t e r a l l y concluded terms and c o n d i t i o n s of employment through f r e e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g as opposed to a r b i t r a t e d se t t lements e x t e r n a l l y imposed. Fur ther matters r e q u i r e a t t e n t i o n . Although the examinat ion i s p r i n c i p a l l y a comparative one the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the B r i t i s h Columbia reforms f o r Canadian l a b o u r p o l i c y ought to be noted . This i s a l r e a d y accounted f o r i n par t by those chapters d e a l i n g w i th the main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the B r i t i s h Columbia system. However, a f u r t h e r chapter i s i nc luded to examine those f e a t u r e s , not elsewhere examined, which render the B r i t i s h Columbia s t a t u t e a p a t h f i n d e r f o r the Canadian j u r i s d i c t i o n s . By comparison a separate chapter on New Zealand labour p o l i c y would be b e r e f t of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n view of New Zea land 's u n e r r i n g adherence to i t s I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n , d a t i n g from i t s i n i t i a l exper imental s t a t u t e o f 1894. Secondly , P a r t I examining the B r i t i s h Columbia system was researched dur ing the pe r iod September 1978 to December 1979, w h i l s t the author was r e s i d e n t i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Access to B r i t i s h Columbia m a t e r i a l s and Board d e c i s i o n s under the Code has not been p o s s i b l e s i n c e t h a t t i m e . Consequent ly , a l though no s i g n i f i c a n t new p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n i s a n t i c i p a t e d e i t h e r on the par t of the Board or the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e , Par t I cannot account f o r developments t h a t may have occur red s i n c e 1 January- 1980 and the date of submission o f t h i s t h e s i s . F i n a l l y , what i s advocated on the s t r e n g t h o f t h i s study does not amount to an emphatic r e j e c t i o n o f one system i n preference f o r the o t h e r . As the 13. B r i t i s h Columbia Board we l l recogn ises o f the l e g i s l a t i o n i s must a d m i n i s t e r , every labour r e l a t i o n s system i s a response to the p a r t i c u l a r needs and nuances 41 o f the labour r e l a t i o n s community i t must r e g u l a t e . Shaping these needs are a p o t - p o u r r i o f i n f l u e n c e s , some economic i n c h a r a c t e r , some i n d u s t r i a l , some 42 s o c i a l , some pure l y h i s t o r i c a l . For t h i s reason no labour r e l a t i o n s system should ever s t r i v e to be s imply a f a s c i m i l e of another . Yet i t i s apparent t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t changes are long overdue i n the case of New Zea land 's e x t e n s i v e l y r e g u l a t e d procedures governing i n t e r e s t d i s p u t e s . The r a d i c a l s o l u t i o n would be the wholesa le a b o l i t i o n o f I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n i n New Zea land . But no New Zealand government has promoted, or indeed i s l i k e l y to p romote , th i s a l t e r n a t i v e i n the fo reseeab le 43 f u t u r e . Thus a more r e a l i s t i c proposal f o r reform i s t h a t the A r b i t r a t i o n Court r e l a x i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the i n d u s t r i a l s t a t u t e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l requ i rement ; r e l i n g u i s h i t s c o n t r o l over the sub jec ts of b a r g a i n i n g i n New Zea land ; and thereby withdraw i t s l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n of management's p r e r o g a t i v e s i n i t s r e l a t i o n s w i th l a b o u r . I t may a l s o a s s i s t the A r b i t r a t i o n Court adopt a lower p r o f i l e i n i n t e r e s t d i spu tes to encourage the b i - l a t e r a l l y concluded 44 c o n c i l i a t e d agreement (as opposed to the a r b i t r a t e d award o f the Court) by l e g i s l a t i v e amendment r e c o g n i s i n g the economic s a n c t i o n as the p r e f e r r e d mechanism f o r d i spu te s e t t l e m e n t . 41 Hence the Board 's e a r l y d e c l a r a t i o n tha t i t d i d not i n t e n d impor t ing " t h i s e n t i r e body o f American d o c t r i n e " ( f i x i n g the scope o f the duty to bargain c o l l e c t i v e l y under the Wagner Act ) i n t o B r i t i s h Columbia: "The scope of the o b l i g a t i o n which we f i n d i n s . 6 o f the Labour Code w i l l be developed on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s " : Noranda, s u p r a , note ,38, a t 162. 42 See g e n e r a l l y the Board 's d i s c u s s i o n of "a t y p i c a l town" i n the p r o v i n c e , c h a r a c t e r i s e d by a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e p o p u l a t i o n u n i t e d by a s i n g l e dominant i n d u s t r y ; Pulp and Paper Bureau, s u p r a , note 5 . 43 See e g . , the Government and Oppos i t ion statements i n 1 9 8 0 , s u p r a , note^40.< 44 See the I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Act 1973, s s . 6 7 - 8 3 , 1 4 . PART I 15. II. PERFECTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTION "The courts of law can only really catch a glimpse of the overall labour picture. Their interference in the past has been sporadic and fortuitous. The judges lack the intimate knowledge of the very dynamic process of industrial relations and collective bargaining. For these reasons,...the new labour code has removed the court's jurisdiction over labour disputes... .The new law seeks an administrative rather than a judicial solution to labour disputes." BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) (Th i rd S e s s i o n ) , a t 399-400 per the Hon. W.S. K i n g , M i n i s t e r of Labour . A. INTRODUCTION I t i s noteworthy t h a t i n the case of Canada and e i g h t p r o v i n c e s , the i n i t i a l pos t -war c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g s t a t u t e s conta ined p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e s p u r p o r t i n g to exc lude j u d i c i a l rev iew of board d e c i s i o n s . As e a r l y as 1952, however, v i r t u a l l y upon the enactment of these c l a u s e s , Bora L a s k i n observed the "apparent f u t i l i t y " o f these attempts to oust the s u p e r i o r c o u r t s . 1 " In the face of such enactments" , L a s k i n c a u t i o n e d , " j u d i c i a l p e r s i s t e n c e i n e x e r c i s i n g a rev iewing power i n v o l v e s an a r r o g a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y on ly on the b a s i s of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e (and there i s no 1 L a s k i n , C e r t i o r a r i to Labour Boards: The Apparent F u t i l i t y of the P r i v a t i v e  C lause (1952) 30 Can B. Rev. 986. 16. such p r i n c i p l e ) or on the b a s i s of some ' e l i t e ' theory of knowing what i s best f o r a l l concerned". 1 ^ This o b j e c t i o n to j u d i c i a l rev iew serves n o t i c e of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l argument e n j o i n i n g the c o u r t ' s obedience to the p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e . Y e t , the f o l l o w i n g decades of j u d i c i a l a c t i v i s m in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law enabled P r o f e s s o r H.W.R. Wade to comment r e c e n t l y t h a t i t i s to be hoped tha t cour ts w i l l not be d issuaded by the Code's unusual p r o v i s i o n s from assuming t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e . In the l i g h t o f these opposing v i e w s , t h i s chapter examines whether the M i n i s t e r ' s conf idence i n 1973 was warranted when he pronounced "the 4 Code has removed the c o u r t s j u r i s d i c t i o n " . The examinat ion f a l l s i n t o two p a r t s . The f i r s t (under the headings B. THE JURISDICTIONAL  PROVISIONS, C. THE BACKGROUND TO SECTION 3 3 , D. APPROACHES TO SECTION 33.) r e v e a l s why B r i t i s h Columbia f e l t d r i v e n to experiment w i t h " n o v e l , 2 I b i d . , a t 991. 3 Expressed i n the guest l e c t u r e a t the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Conference , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1979. But c f . , P r o f e s s o r Wade's p lea to cour ts f o r subter fuge r a t h e r than "naked d i sobed ience" to the ous te r c l a u s e , (1979) 95 L.Q.R. 163, and i n (1977) 93 L.Q.R. 8 , to avo id exposing t h e i r d isobed ience p l e a d i n g to c o u r t s to r e t a i n the " h i g h l y a r t i f i c i a l reason ing" s u s t a i n i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between j u r i s d i c t i o n a l / n o n - j u r i s d i c t i o n a l e r r o r . Cont ras t Lord D i p l o c k ' s d i c t u m , i n f r a , cor responding to note 30 . . 4 See s u p r a , Chapter headnote. For Government Members' a n t i p a t h y g e n e r a l l y towards the cour ts i n labour m a t t e r s , see BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) ( Th i rd Sess ion) a t 475 per Hon. G .R.Lea ( M i n i s t e r of Highways) and 933 per G. L iden (Member f o r D e l t a ) . The O p p o s i t i o n ' s major o b j e c t i o n s to the c lauses e x c l u d i n g access_ to the cour ts appealed more to emotion than reason . See e g . , G .B. Gardom'(Member f o r Vancouver-P o i n t G r e y ) , e u l o g i s i n g the p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t , " j u s t i c e " and " e q u i t y " and "600 years of precedent" from Magna Car ta to the p r e s e n t ; BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) (Th i rd S e s s i o n ) , a t 1044. More than one member thought the r e t e n t i o n of the p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t " c r i t i c a l to the system of democracy as we know i t " (per P.A. Anderson, a t 1045) . E d i t o r i a l comment was s i m i l a r l y impass ioned ; see- H.W. A r t h u r s , "The D u l l e s t B i l l " :  R e f l e c t i o n s on the Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia (1974) 9 U . B . C . L . R . 280 , a t 324. 17. c o n t r o v e r s i a l , and arguably u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " l e g i s l a t i o n . Despi te a d r a f t i n g i m p e r f e c t i o n , the c o n c l u s i o n reached i s t h a t the Code's j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s can be penetrated on ly i n d i s r e g a r d of the c o u r t ' s duty to the l e g i s l a t u r e : e n j o i n i n g cour ts to g ive " [e ]very e n a c t m e n t . . . s u c h f a i r , l a r g e , and l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as best ensures the at ta inment of i t s o b j e c t s " . Through i n t e r a c t i n g one w i t h another , these p r o v i s i o n s prec lude the usual conceptual j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l rev iew i n face of the p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e . The second p a r t r e v e a l s whether the l e g i s l a t u r e has i n f a c t c reated a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g regime o p e r a t i n g e x c l u s i v e of the c o u r t s . As the headings here i n d i c a t e (E. THE BOARD'S RETREAT and F. THE JUDICIAL  INCURSION) not i n every i n s t a n c e have the cour ts i n B r i t i s h Columbia abided by the Code's i n s t r u c t i o n . B. THE JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS Discussed f i r s t i s s e c t i o n 3 4 ( 1 ) , the p r i n c i p a l i n t e n t of which i s to g rant the Board e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to r e s o l v e ques t ions " a r i s i n g under t h i s a c t " . (a) S e c t i o n 34(1) " 3 4 . ( 1 ) The board has e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to dec ide any quest ions a r i s i n g under t h i s A c t , and , upon a p p l i c a t i o n by any person , or on i t s own m o t i o n , may dec ide f o r a-11 purposes of t h i s Ac t any q u e s t i o n , i n c l u d i n g , w i thout r e s t r i c t i n g the g e n e r a l i t y of the f o r e g o i n g , any ques t ion as to whether [ i n pa r t s (a) to (w), a range of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a r i s i n g under the Code],." 5 See A r t h u r s , i b i d . , a t 326. 6 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , R . S . B . C . 1 9 7 6 , c . 4 2 , s . 8 . C f . , L a s k i n ' s i n s t r u c t i o n , s u p r a , note 1 , a t 990, t h a t "[w]e must n o t . . . d e l u d e o u r s e l v e s t h a t j u d i c i a l rev iew r e s t s on any h igher ground t h a t t h a t of being i m p l i c i t i n s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " . 18. Th is i s the p r o v i s i o n which labours under the d r a f t i n g i m p e r f e c t i o n noted above. The debates i n 1973 i n d i c a t e t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e intended not o n l y to remove the c o u r t ' s rev iew powers but a l s o to bequeath the Board e x c l u s i v e , o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l matters i n v o l v i n g the Code, whether a r i s i n g d i r e c t l y or i n c i d e n t l y i n the course of proceedings under i t . ' ' However, not o n l y does s e c t i o n 34(1) f a i l to i n v e s t t h i s e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n ; the s e c t i o n , to the ex tent t h a t i t leaves the c o u r t s concur rent j u r i s d i c t i o n , a l s o enhances the l i k e l i h o o d o f j u d i c i a l rev iew of Board d e c i s i o n s . ( i ) The d r a f t i n g d e f e c t . The s e c t i o n confers j u r i s d i c t i o n i n th ree s t a g e s . F i r s t , the opening words grant the Board e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n , r e i n f o r c e d by the p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e , to dec ide a l l ques t ions " a r i s i n g under [ the] A c t " . The second s t a g e , "and may dec ide f o r a l l purposes of t h i s Act any q u e s t i o n " , i s d i s t i n c t from the f i r s t . These words denote concur rent j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the Board and the c o u r t s to i n t e r p r e t and apply law e x t e r n a l to the Code, where such law must be cons idered i n the course of proceedings under i t . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to envisage a s i t u a t i o n i n which cour ts could e x e r c i s e t h i s o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , s i n c e on ly the Board can p r e s i d e over Code Q proceed ings . Nonethe less , the consequences a f f e c t i n g the t h i r d stage by which s e c t i o n 34(1) confers j u r i s d i c t i o n c o n f i r m t h a t the r e t e n t i o n of concur rent j u r i s d i c t i o n , a t the second s t a g e , i s a d r a f t i n g e r r o r . The t h i r d stage i s an ex tens ion o f the second, bestowing j u r i s d i c t i o n by way 7 E g . , see the M i n i s t e r ' s speech, s u p r a , chapter headnote. 8 But c f . , the ' e x t e r n a l law' ground f o r r e v i e w , i n f r a , 1 . THE BOARD'S RETREAT and F. THE JUDICIAL INCURSION. 19. of s p e c i f i c a t i o n ( i n par ts (a) to (w)) of matters which the Board "may decide f o r a l l purposes o f t h i s A c t " . As an ex tens ion o f the second i t r e q u i r e s to be read i n the same l i g h t , denot ing concurrent and not e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n . The Board has d e c l i n e d t h i s r e a d i n g , however, p r e f e r r i n g i n e f f e c t to t r e a t the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s as ex tens ions of the f i r s t r a t h e r than second 9 stage by which j u r i s d i c t i o n i s g r a n t e d . This i s understandable i n view o f the importance to the Code's o p e r a t i o n of the matters so s p e c i f i e d , matters which the l e g i s l a t u r e intended to be the Board 's e x c l u s i v e concern . And y e t a t l e a s t one B r i t i s h Columbia Court has served n o t i c e of concur rent j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine these matters (the Court i n t h i s case d i s c l a i m i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n quest ions not so s p e c i f i e d ) . In P i t u r a v L i n c o l n Manor e t a l the i s s u e was whether the Supreme Court had j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t f o r i n t i m i d a t i o n and i n t e r f e r e n c e w i th c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s a r i s i n g from a c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t . Munroe J . d i d not examine the s e c t i o n s bequeathing the Board 's j u r i s d i c t i o n , ye t accepted t h a t where the i s s u e i s whether the Labour Code o r a c o l l e c t i v e agreement has been breached the Board has e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n . ^ 9 E . g . , see C o n s t r u c t i o n Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia  e t a l . [1975J 2 Can. L . R . B . R . 374, a t 380 ( d e c l a r i n g e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n w i th respect to par t ( h ) ) ; Canadian C e l l u l o s e Co Ltd e t a l . [1976] 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 400, a t 401 -3 ( d e c l a r i n g the same wi th respect to pa r t s (g) and (w)) ; Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and the Corp.  o f De l ta and C . U . P . E . , Local 454 [J979J 2 Can. L . R . B . R . 273 , a t 279-80 ( d e c l a r i n g the same wi th r e s p e c t to par ts ( c ) , (d) and (g ) ) . 10 (1978) 9 B . C . L . R . 77 ( B . C . S . C . ) . 11 I b i d , a t 8 0 . T h e s e are quest ions not s p e c i f i e d i n par ts (a) to (w). This i s s i g n i f i c a n t because Munroe J . a f f i r m e d the 'Cour t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n to proceed w i th the common law a c t i o n on the ground tha t " [ the ] l e t t e r of u n d e r t a k i n g . . . i s not a c o l l e c t i v e agreement between the p l a i n t i f f and the defendant 12 u n i o n " . In c o n t r a s t to the former i s s u e (whether breach o f the Labour Code or a c o l l e c t i v e agreement has o c c u r r e d ) , par ts (c) and (g) of s e c t i o n 34(1) des ignate whether a c o l l e c t i v e agreement "has been entered i n t o " and " i s i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t " to be ques t ions f o r the Board. In d e c i d i n g , t h e n , t h a t the contested l e t t e r d i d not s a t i s f y the Code's requirements so as to c o n s t i t u t e a c o l l e c t i v e agreement, the Court e f f e c t i v e l y construed s e c t i o n 34(1) as a l l o c a t i n g the ques t ions i n (a) to (w) c o n c u r r e n t l y to the c o u r t s and the Board. Indeed, the Court added t h a t i f the l e g a l i t y o f a s t r i k e or l o c k o u t must be e s t a b l i s h e d i n support o f a c l a i m f o r damages, the cour t must r e m i t the matter to the Board f o r 13 d e t e r m i n a t i o n . S ince t h i s i s a f u r t h e r i s s u e not addressed by pa r t s (a) to (w), presumably Munroe J . t r e a t e d i t as f a l l i n g w i t h i n the Board 's e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n con fe r red by the opening words of the s e c t i o n , " to decide any ques t ion a r i s i n g under [ the] A c t " . Whatever the judge 's percept ion of the c o u r t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the Board , these r u l i n g s comply w i t h the d r a f t i n g o f s e c t i o n 34(1) w h i c h , on any r e a d i n g , f a i l s to bequeath the Board e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n other than a t the f i r s t s t a g e . 12 I b i d . 13 I b i d , a t 79. ) ( i i ) An avenue f o r review? The e x i s t i n g ground f o r rev iew , e s t a b l i s h e d on the ' e x t e r n a l law' d o c t r i n e , i s examined below. The p o s s i b i l i t y a r i s e s a t t h i s s t a g e , however, of the cour ts extending t h e i r review j u r i s d i c t i o n on a f u r t h e r ground, c o i n c i d i n g w i th t h e i r concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n over such matters as t h a t i n i ssue i n P i t u r a . I t i s not a necessary c o n d i t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n shared c o n c u r r e n t l y w i th the cour ts t h a t , by tha t f a c t , i t be a l s o r e v i e w a b l e . But c o n s i d e r the j u d i c i a l presumpt ion, tha t the l e g i s l a t u r e does not in tend the f o r e c l o s u r e of j u d i c i a l review i n every i n s t a n c e when i t i n v e s t s an i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l w i th j u r i s d i c t i o n and decrees t h a t the j u r i s d i c t i o n be immune from r e v i e w . 1 4 Labour cases i n p a r t i c u l a r i l l u s t r a t e t h i s where the l e g i s l a t u r e seeks to secure the independence o f the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r from the o u t s e t , by 15 g r a n t i n g e x c l u s i v e and not concur rent j u r i s d i c t i o n . A f o r t i o r i where the i n i t i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n conf ided i s not e x c l u s i v e - where the s u b j e c t matter of the empowering s t a t u t e does not render the i ssues w h o l l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n - the cour ts can be expected to apply the presumption more r e a d i l y . The re fo re , i t may be tha t a s u p e r i o r cour t i n c l i n i n g towards a c o n t r a r y view o f the l e g a l i t i e s would not be l o a t h to upset a Board d e c i s i o n entered under pa r t s (a) to (w) o f s e c t i o n 3 4 ( 1 ) , whatever the e f f e c t o f the Code's p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e ; o t h e r w i s e , the cour ts may a s k , why d i d the l e g i s l a t u r e preserve t h e i r o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ? However, to date the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the B r i t i s h Columbia cour ts to over tu rn the Board on any of these matters has not a r i s e n . 14 For recent j u d i c i a l acceptance of the presumpt ion , see Re Racal Communic- a t i o n s Ltd [1980] 2 A l l ER 634 ( H . L . ) , a t 638 per Lord D i p l o c k . 15 See g e n e r a l l y L a s k i n , s u p r a , note 1 . 22. As a r e s u l t o f the d r a f t i n g d e f e c t , t h e n , s e c t i o n 3 4 ( 1 ) , to the ex tent t h a t i t encourages j u d i c i a l r e v i e w , does not heed the M i n i s t e r ' s statement i n 1973, admonishing the cour ts f o r t h e i r past i n t e r v e n t i o n and d e c l a r i n g t h a t hencefor th t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s r e m o v e d . 1 6 Th is i s p e r t i n e n t s i n c e the l e g i s l a t u r e endorsed the M i n i s t e r ' s statement when i t enacted the Board 's e x t r a o r d i n a r y mandate ( s e c t i o n 3 3 , d i s c u s s e d below) to determine the ex tent of i t s own j u r i s d i c t i o n ; s u r e l y , i t i s anomolous to confer e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine j u r i s d i c t i o n and, a t the same t i m e , reserve to the c o u r t s t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l powers to p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l e r r o r . Consequent ly , s e c t i o n 34(1) i s i n need of s t reng then ing ( t h a t s e c t i o n 33 i s s t i l l capable of e x c l u d i n g the c o u r t ' s rev iew powers n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g 1 7 ) . The amendment proposed i s to remove the c o u r t ' s o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r a l l purposes o f the Code, d e l e t i n g the e x i s t i n g words i n p a r e n t h e s i s and s u b s t i t u t i n g the i t a l i c i z e d p a r t s : " 3 4 . ( 1 ) The Board has e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to dec ide any ques t ion a r i s i n g under t h i s A c t , and, upon a p p l i c a t i o n by any person , or on i t s own m o t i o n , (may dec ide f o r a l l purposes o f t h i s Act any q u e s t i o n , i n c l u d i n g ) to dec ide f o r a l l purposes o f t h i s Ac t any  quest ion howsoever a r i s i n g , and , w i thout r e s t r i c t i n g the g e n e r a l i t y o f the f o r e g o i n g , has and s h a l l e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e  j u r i s d i c t i o n to dec ide any quest ion as to whether [ s p e c i f y i n g paragraphs (a) to (w ) ] . " (b) S e c t i o n 31 The second p r o v i s i o n g r a n t i n g general powers to the Board r e a d s : " 3 1 . Except as otherwise prov ided i n t h i s A c t , the Board has and s h a l l e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to hear and determine an a p p l i c a t i o n or compla int under the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s Act and to make any order permi t ted to be made and , w i thout l i m i t i n g the g e n e r a l i t y of the f o r e g o i n g , the board has and s h a l l e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f 16 Supra , Chapter headnote. 17 See i n f r a , D. APPROACHES TO SECTION 33 . 23. (a) any matter i n r e s p e c t of which the board has j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s Act or the r e g u l a t i o n s ; (b) any matter in r e s p e c t of which the board determines under s e c t i o n 33 t h a t i t has j u r i s d i c t i o n ; and (c) any a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the r e g u l a t i o n , r e s t r a i n t or p r o h i b i t i o n of any person or group o f persons from i ) ceas ing or r e f u s i n g to perform work or to remain i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p of employment; or i i ) p i c k e t i n g , s t r i k i n g , or l o c k i n g o u t ; or i i i ) communicating i n f o r m a t i o n or o p i n i o n i n a labour d i s p u t e by speech, w r i t i n g , or any o ther means. The most e x c e p t i o n a l f e a t u r e of t h i s p r o v i s i o n i s paragraph (b) i n t h a t i t assumes the e x i s t e n c e of the Board 's s e c t i o n 33 j u r i s d i c t i o n (d i scussed p r e s e n t l y ) . A l s o . e x c e p t i o n a l i s paragraph (c) g r a n t i n g e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over i n t e r a l i a s t r i k e s and l o c k o u t s . R e i n f o r c i n g t h i s i s s e c t i o n 32(1) which s t i p u l a t e s t h a t "no c o u r t has or s h a l l e x e r c i s e any j u r i s d i c t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f . . . a matter r e f e r r e d to i n s e c t i o n 3 1 " , and , i n I o r e s p e c t of the labour i n j u n c t i o n t h a t "no cour t s h a l l make an order e n j o i n i n g or p r o h i b i t i n g any a c t or t h i n g i n r e s p e c t o f " . (c) Other s e c t i o n s Fur ther p r o v i s i o n s r e q u i r i n g mention are s e c t i o n s 3 2 ( 2 ) , 87 and 8 9 . S e c t i o n 87 d i v e s t s the cour ts o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i n r e s p e c t of t o r t s ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , t r e s p a s s and i n t e r f e r e n c e w i th c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s ) committed i n f u r t h e r a n c e of s t r i k e s , l o c k o u t s , or p i c k e t i n g permi t ted by the Code. The companion p r o v i s i o n i s s e c t i o n 89 . Th is exc ludes the c o n s p i r a c y a c t i o n i n r e s p e c t of a c t s done i n contemplat ion or f u r t h e r a n c e 18 BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) (Th i rd S e s s i o n ) , a t 399. 24. o f a labour d i s p u t e w h i c h , i n the absence o f combinat ion or agreement, 19 would not be w r o n g f u l . O v e r r i d i n g these p r o v i s i o n s i s s e c t i o n 3 2 ( 2 ) . Th is p r o v i s i o n saves the c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n where a "wrongful a c t or o m i s s i o n . . . c a u s e s an immediate danger of s e r i o u s i n j u r y to any i n d i v i d u a l or causes an a c t u a l o b s t r u c t i o n 20 or p h y s i c a l damage to p r o p e r t y " . By v i r t u e of s e c t i o n 3 2 ( 3 ) , however, the c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n to i s s u e i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f on an ex par te a p p l i c a t i o n does not s u r v i v e . (d) Sec t ion 33 The unique f e a t u r e of the Board 's j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s e c t i o n 3 3 . As w e l l as being an independent source o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h i s p r o v i s i o n s t rengthens the grants o f e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n s e c t i o n s 31 and 34(1) and , not l e a s t , the p r i v a t i v e c lause i n s e c t i o n 3 4 ( 2 ) : " 3 3 . The board has and s h a l l e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine the ex tent of i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s A c t , a c o l l e c t i v e agreement, or the r e g u l a t i o n s , and to determine any f a c t or ques t ion o f law t h a t i s necessary to e s t a b l i s h i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , and to determine whether or not or i n what manner i t s h a l l e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n " . 19 See Miko and Sons Logging Ltd v Penner [1976] 4 W.W.R. 756 (per McKay J ) ; A lcan Smelter and A l l i e d Workers, Local No. 1 (1977) , 3 B . C . L . R . 163 (per MacFarlane J ) ; P i t u r a v L i n c o l n Manor Ltd e t a l . , s u p r a , note 10. For d i s c u s s i o n , see A r t h u r s , s u p r a , note 4 , a t 3 0 1 - 3 1 3 . 20 For a Board d e c i s i o n d i s c l a i m i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n a c t u a l or apprehended breaches of the general law, see Canex P l a c e r Ltd e t a l . [1975] 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 269. See a l s o , A r t h u r s , i b i d . 21 C f . , the summary manner i n which Addy . J . i n Re B r i t i s h Columbia Packers  L td e t a l . and B r i t i s h Columbia Counc i l Uni ted Fishermen and A l l i e d  Workers Union (1974) , 50 D.L .R . (3d) 602 ( a f f i r m e d 82 D.L .R . (3d) 1 8 2 ) , a t 609 , d e a l t w i t h the p r i v a t i v e c lause i n the Canada Labour Code, R . S . C . 1970, c . L - l , s . 1 2 2 . See i n f r a , note 2 5 . 25. C. THE BACKGROUND TO SECTION 33 In Canada the i n h e r i t e d p r i n c i p l e of l e g i s l a t i v e supremacy i s m o d i f i e d by a d i s t r i b u t i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e power consonant w i t h f e d e r a l i s m . But as 22 L a s k i n e a r l i e r e x p l a i n e d , the supremacy o f the l e g i s l a t u r e i s s t i l l the c a r d i n a l p r i n c i p l e of the Canadian p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m . 2 3 The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the j u d i c i a r y to the l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e r e f o r e , i s r e s t r i c t i v e l y d e f i n e d . b y , the r u l e e n j o i n i n g j u d i c i a l obedience to the enacted word. Th is r u l e , and the r e l a t i o n s h i p i t so d e f i n e s , i s m a n i f e s t i n the general i n t e r p r e t a t i v e f u n c t i o n ass igned to the c o u r t s i n a p p l y i n g s t a t u t e s ; so long as enactments remain w i t h i n the f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l a l l o c a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e power, t h i s f u n c t i o n i n Canada has never permi t ted j u d i c i a l i n v a l i d a t i o n of s t a t u t e s on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l grounds. Consequent ly , i f l e g i s l a t i v e supremacy be the c a r d i n a l p r i n c i p l e , then the on ly j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the c o u r t s assuming t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e over i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l s i s to ensure the s a n c t i t y of the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s word -to ensure t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency c reated by s t a t u t e compl ies s t r i c t l y w i th the terms of i t s c r e a t i o n . Commonplace w i t h the expansion of government t h i s century i s the p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e . Contained i n the empowering s t a t u t e , i t i s i t s e l f a term of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency 's c r e a t i o n , a l b e i t as a d i r e c t i o n addressed i n t h i s i n s t a n c e not to the s t a t u t o r y body but to the c o u r t s . S i m p l y , i t expresses the d e s i r e of the law-making organ t h a t bodies performing c e r t a i n s p e c i a l i s e d f u n c t i o n s be 22 Supra , note 1 , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t 9 8 9 - 9 1 . 23 While not sovere ign i n the sense of u n b r i d l e d l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y , the powers of the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s are p lenary w i t h i n t h e i r p r o v i n c i a l domain. See, e g . , McCawley v The King [1920] AC 6 9 1 , per Lord Birkenhead f o r the P r i v y C o u n c i l , d e c l a r i n g the Queensland l e g i s l a t u r e to be "master o f i t s own household" as a body "sovere ign w i t h i n i t s powers" . 26. f r e e from j u d i c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s , and , i f the usual p o l i c y a p p l i e s , t h a t they be u n r e s t r i c t e d by the procedures tha t b ind c o u r t s i n the d ischarge o f t h e i r f u n c t i o n s . In no f i e l d i s t h a t d e s i r e more c l e a r l y exp ressed , L a s k i n observed , than i n labour s t a t u t e s promoting se t t lement of d i s p u t e s through c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . Yet the law r e p o r t s a t t e s t tha t i n no j u r i s d i c t i o n i n Canada has the l e g i s l a t u r e s u c c e s s f u l l y f reed the labour board from j u d i c i a l c o n t r o l . Consider the Ontar io labour s t a t u t e c o n t a i n i n g the usual p r i v a t i v e 26 p r o v i s i o n s . On each occas ion these were c o n s i d e r e d , the cour t e m p h a t i c a l l y r e j e c t e d the no t ion tha t they cou ld be construed so as to 27 empower the Board to e r r on a matter on which i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n depends. The reasoning i s f a m i l i a r . S ince a " d e c i s i o n , o r d e r , d i r e c t i o n , d e c l a r a t i o n or r u l i n g " he ld to be made wi thout j u r i s d i c t i o n i s n o t , i n t r u t h , a " d e c i s i o n , order d i r e c t i o n , d e c l a r a t i o n or r u l i n g " , there i s i n law noth ing 24 Supra , note 1 . 25 For a candid d e n i a l of the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s a b i l i t y to exc lude the c o u r t s , see Re B r i t i s h Columbia Packers Ltd e t a l . , s u p r a , note 2 1 , at 609 , per Addy J : "There are numerous d e c i s i o n s of common law Courts of the h ighes t j u r i s d i c t i o n over many years which have held t h a t Courts of s u p e r i o r j u r i s d i c t i o n possess ing powers of p r o h i b i t i o n and en t rus ted w i t h the duty of s u p e r v i s i n g t r i b u n a l s of i n f e r i o r j u r i s d i c t i o n , have not o n l y the  j u r i s d i c t i o n but the duty to e x e r c i s e those powers n o t - w i t h s t a n d i n g p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e s . . . " . (Emphasis added) 26 Ontar io Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t , R .S .O . 1970, c . 232, s s . 95(1) and 97. 27 I n t e r a l i a , Toronto Newspaper G u i l d v Globe P r i n t i n g Co [1953] 2 S . C . R . 18 ( S . C . C ) ; J a n / i s v A s s o c i a t e d Medical S e r v i c e s Ltd (1964) 44 D .L .R . (2d) 407 ( S . C . C ) ; M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e Insurance Co v I n t ' T Union of  Operat ing Engineers L 1 9 7 0 ] S . C . R . 425 ( S . C . C ) ; R: v Labour R e l a t i o n s  Board ( O n t . ) ; ex par te N o r . E l e c . Co. [1970] 2 O.R. 654, a f f i r m e d LI 971J 1 O.R. 121. 27. for the privative clause to protect. On the authorities, the most that these clauses have achieved is to exclude the prerogative writs where the Board's error, whether of law or fact, is designated 'non-jurisdictional1. However, administrative lawyers familiar with Anisminic v Foreign 29 Compensation Commission know that the kinds of error so designated are few. (Recently, indeed, Lord Diplock acknowledged in the case of inferior tribunals, that "for all practical purposes" Anisminic "abolished" the 30 category of 'non-jurisdictional' error of law. ) Thus, in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co v International Union of 31 Operating Engineers, it was no answer that the Ontario Labour.Board was within its statutory jurisdiction in embarking on the certification 28 The reference is to the privative clauses of the Ontario Statute, supra, note 26. 29 [1969]. 2 A'.G. 147 (H.L.). 30 Re Racal Communications Ltd [.1980] 2 All ER 634 (H.L.), at 638-9; Hence "[a]ny error of law ... made by ... [an inferior tribunal] in the course of reaching .. [its] decision on matters of fact or of administrative policy would result in ... the decision ... [being] a nullity". Cf., however, C.U.P.E., Local 963 v New Brunswick  Liquor Corp. (1979), 25 N.B.R. (2d) 237 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court Holding, reversing the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (21 N.B.R. (2d) 441), that the privative clause in the Public Services Labour Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.P-25, s.101 denied the court's power to review. The decision is significant as indicating judicial recognition of the legislative policy in protecting the labour board's autonomy. However, its effect must not be overstated since the court did not impugn the traditional ground for review. E.-q., at 245, Dickson J confined the decision to errors lying "at the heart of the specialized jurisdiction confided to the Board", also confining the court's acceptance of the legislative policy (above) to "a labour board's decision within  jurisdiction" (emphasis added). For discussion, see Re Hughes Boat  Workers Inc. and UAW (1980),102 D.L.R. (3d) 661 (S.C.C.) characterizing the question in terms of "reasonableness" (of the board's interpretation of its constituent statute) rather than "correctness". 31 Supra, note 27. 28. proceeding since, the Supreme Court held, the Board in the course of the inquiry stepped outside its jurisdiction by asking itself a question not assigned by the legislature. This, for purposes of the judicial inquiry, rendered it irrelevant that the Board's practice in these proceedings had been developed out.of regard for the Act's principles facilitating.appropriate bargaining units. Significantly, following the Supreme Court's decision an amendment to 32 the Ontario Act reinstated the practice struck down in Metropolitan Life. This indicates not only the legislature's disapproval of the court's decision but also its desire to protect what the court here failed to respect - the administrative trinbunal's ability to expedite the settlement of labour disputes. Yet, while the amendment reinstates the Board's practice7 it has not freed it from the jurisprudence of Metropolitan Life. Recently, the Ontario Board affirmed that while its former discretion in certification proceedings is preserved, it can still exceed its jurisdiction in such 33 proceedings by asking itself "the wrong question". This acknowledgement of the Board, viewed against the. legislature's desire to protect the Board's independence, shows the extent to which the conceptualism of Anisminic has minimised the effect of the privative clause in the labour statute. It is against this background that section 33 of the Code reveals its purpose. It expresses the clearest legislative intent to deprive superior courts of the ability to resurrect jurisdiction from the privative clause. 32 See now, ss l(l)(j) and 92(4). For comment, see Windsor Raceway.Holdings  Ltd and Windsor Raceway Union., Local 639, et al. [1979] 2 Can. L.R.B.R. 89 (O.L.R.B.). 33 Ibid, citing Metropolitan Life, supra note 27. 29. In the words of the Minister of Labour in 1973, commenting on the Code's procedure for an appeal from a three-man.panel to a full-sitting of the Board: "Allowing for a special appeal to an administrative agency, as provided in the Labour code, is an important innovation in Canadian labour law, ... It is a recognition of the unsuitability of review in the courts of administrative decisions by prerogative writs, such as certiorari et. cetera, where the issue of jurisdiction and not the substance of a decision is considered." 34 Further: "[T]o jeopardize the decision to court actions ... [could] emasculate the board's effectiveness to come to grips with labour problems. That certainly has been the problem in the past." 35 D. APPROACHES TO SECTION 33 This section concentrates on arguments that may be used to circumvent section 33. This is done not so much for the reason that a court would attempt these arguments (rather than grapple with these, history indicates that a court wishing to intervene would simply ignore section 33) but rather to illustrate the logic in support of the Code achieving its object. Pre-ceeding this is a brief account of the way in which section 33 and its companion provisions interact so as to remedy "the problem in the past". 34 BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) (Third Session) at 397 per the Hon. W.S. King. Cf., the Code, s.36. 35 Ibid. 36 As early as 1952, Laskin observed of labour cases that since it falls to courts to construe privative clauses, "they are in a position to interpret (that is, ignore) the legislative direction by simply refusing to give up their supervisory authority"; supra, note 1, at 990 (the parenthesis is Laskin1s). 30. (a) The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r a t i o n Sec t ions 31 and 34(1) r e i n f o r c e the Board 's unique s e c t i o n 33 j u r i s d i c t i o n . F i r s t , s e c t i o n 3 3 , e x c l u s i v e l y empowering the Board to determine the ex ten t o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , renders the i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i t s e l f a q u e s t i o n a r i s i n g under the Code. S e c t i o n 3 4 ( 1 ) , c o n f e r r i n g " e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to decide any quest ion a r i s i n g under t h i s A c t " , thus complements s e c t i o n 33. To s i m i l a r e f f e c t , second, s e c t i o n 31(a) confers " e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n " over "any matter i n respect of which the Board has j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s A c t " ; the i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i t s e l f being one such " m a t t e r " . I f t h a t were not s u f f i c i e n t , s e c t i o n 31(b) extends t h a t grant to a l s o i n c l u d e "any matter i n r e s p e c t o f which the board determines under s e c t i o n 33 t h a t i t has j u r i s d i c t i o n " . Added to t h i s , s e c t i o n 32(1) s t i p u l a t e s t h a t "no cour t has o r s h a l l e x e r c i s e any j u r i s d i c t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f a matter tha t i s . . . r e f e r r e d to i n s e c t i o n 3 1 " ; i n t e r a l i a i n respect o f the Board 's j u r i s d i c t i o n s i m p l i c i t e r or any matter the Board determines under 37 s e c t i o n 33 to be w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . 37 For e a r l y acceptance , see Canex P l a c e e t a l . , s u p r a , note 2 0 , a t 271. The Board accepted t h a t a de te rminat ion as to the extent , o f i t s j u r i s -d i c t i o n pursuant to s . 33 o p e r a t e d , by v i r t u e o f s s . 31 and 3 2 ( 1 ) , (as amended, 1975, c . 3 3 , s . 8 ) , " to d e l i m i t the scope of the c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n respec t o f . . . [the] same m a t t e r s " . The main p r i v a t i v e p r o v i s i o n , however, i s s e c t i o n 3 4 ( 2 ) : "34(2) Except i n respect of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of the board , a d e c i s i o n o r o rder made by the board under t h i s A c t , a c o l l e c t i v e agreement, o r the r e g u l a t i o n s , upon; any matter i n r e s p e c t o f  which the board has j u r i s d i c t i o n , o r determines under  s e c t i o n 33 t h a t i t has j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s A c t , a c o l l e c t i v e agreement, or the r e g u l a t i o n s , i s f i n a l and c o n c l u s i v e and i s not open to quest ion or review i n any c o u r t on any grounds, and no proceedings by or before the board s h a l l be r e s t r a i n e d by i n j u n c t i o n , p r o h i b i t i o n , mandamus, o r any o ther process or proceeding i n any c o u r t , or be removable by c e r t i o r a r i or o therwise i n t o any c o u r t " . 3 ^ In view of s e c t i o n 3 3 , the s a l i e n t par ts of t h i s c lause are the words "upon any matter i n respec t of which the board has j u r i s d i c t i o n " . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i f a t r i b u n a l i s empowered independent ly o f i t s pr imary j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine what i s , and what i s n o t , w i t h i n tha t j u r i s d i c t i o n , then any e r r o r i t thereupon makes i s ' n o n - j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ' and w i t h i n the scope o f the p r i v a t i v e c l a u s e . Indeed, the on ly e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the l e g i s l a t u r e e x p r e s s l y r e f e r r i n g i n tha t c lause to s e c t i o n 33 i s tha t i t in tended to emphasise t h i s i n the event of an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rev iew. The words i n ques t ion ( "or determines under s e c t i o n 33 t h a t i t has j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s A c t , . . . " ) are super f luous s i n c e s e c t i o n 31(b) unambiguously s t a t e s tha t " the board has and s h a l l e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f . . . (b) any matter . . . [so determined] under s e c t i o n 3 3 " . S i n c e , t h e r e f o r e , the s e c t i o n 33 re fe rence cou ld be e x c i s e d w i thout a f f e c t i n g s e c t i o n 3 4 ( 2 ) , presumably i t was inc luded out of an abundance of c a u t i o n , d i r e c t i n g the c o u r t s ' a t t e n t i o n to the reasoning e x c l u d i n g the usual avenue f o r rev iew. N e v e r t h e l e s s , a number of arguments may be 38 Emphasis added. attempted in support of the prerogative writ. Four are examined here. (b) Possible arguments (i) The section 33 determination. The first of these is avoidable by the Board. The Board, it has been seen, has the capacity to determine its jurisdiction, and to designate matters as being within that jurisdiction. For that purpose it may be argued that section 33 requires there to be a determination (that there is jurisdiction to determine a matter) and that it be expressly recorded by the Board in order to avail itself of the privative sections. In the absence of that preliminary measure, Board decisions on matters which it believes are its exclusive concern may be unprotected. 40 Despite the certainty of one commentator, the argument fails on three grounds. The first is based on section 32(1), which excludes the courts in respect of "a matter that is, or may be, referred to in section 31"section 31(b) referring to "[a] matter in respect of which the Board determines under section 33 that it has jurisdiction". The operative words being "or may be", section 32(1) thus excludes the court's review juris-diction in respect of any matter which the Board may. determine as being within its jurisdiction. Since the Board's section 33 jurisdiction is unfettered, this encompasses all matters which the Board proceeds to entertain - matters which the Board could, if it so wished, expressly designate as being within its jurisdiction. 39 See also Arthurs, Supra, note 4, at 329-39 for the constitutional arguments. 40 See Arthurs, ibid, at 328. 41 Emphasis added. 33. The second ground i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d . S i m p l y , i f the Board can des ignate matters w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n by express r u l i n g , cannot the Board e f f e c t the same i m p l i e d l y by reason of i t s proceeding w i th matters on which i t s d e c i s i o n depends? The d i f f e r e n c e between an express and an i m p l i e d r u l i n g f o r purposes of s e c t i o n 33 i s the same as tha t between express and i m p l i e d repeal of s t a t u t e s . In r e s u l t , there i s no d i f f e r e n c e ; f o r i n the absence of express p r o v i s i o n the l e g i s l a t u r e i s deemed to in tend the repeal of an e a r l i e r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t u t e . S i m i l a r l y , the Board may be presumed to proceed w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n s on the b a s i s tha t i t has addressed the i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e i n the m a j o r i t y of cases the Board 's j u r i s d i c t i o n i s so c l e a r as not to warrant ment ion . Th is analogy to express and i m p l i e d repeal would not succeed were i t a s t a t e d c o n d i t i o n of s e c t i o n 33 t h a t each j u r i s d i c t i o n a l de te rminat ion be expressed i n the d e c i s i o n . But s e c t i o n 33 speaks on ly of a d e t e r m i n a t i o n howsoever e f f e c t e d , i m p l i e d l y or e x p r e s s l y . The t h i r d ground i s that the p r i v a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n s 32 and 34(2) ach ieve t h e i r purpose n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the s e c t i o n 33 d e t e r m i n a t i o n , express or i m p l i e d . The reason i s tha t any matter which an i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l proceeds to e n t e r t a i n , i n t r u t h , r a i s e s . t h e q u e s t i o n whether i t has j u r i s d i c t i o n . But where the Board 's j u r i s d i c t i o n i s i n q u e s t i o n , s e c t i o n 33 and 34(1) d i r e c t t h a t the matter be f o r the Board alone to dete rmine , , thus b r i n g i n g the i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n i t s e l f w i t h i n the p r o t e c t i v e terms of s e c t i o n 32 and 3 4 ( 2 ) . 34. Hence i t i s enough tha t the Board possesses i t s s e c t i o n 33 j u r i s d i c t i o n , r e g a r d l e s s of whether the de te rminat ion be e x p r e s s , i m p l i e d or made at a l l . A Board d e c i s i o n d i sputed on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l grounds i s (to quote s e c t i o n 34(2)) "a d e c i s i o n made by the B o a r d . . . u p o n [a] matter i n respect of which the Board has j u r i s d i c t i o n " . ( i i ) Natura l j u s t i c e . The Supreme Court of Canada has a f f i r m e d that f a i l u r e to comply w i th the r u l e s of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e i s a matter a f f e c t i n g 42 j u r i s d i c t i o n , not procedure . Consequent ly , un less the Code r e l i e v e s the Board of the o b l i g a t i o n to comply w i th the r u l e s , b ias or f a i l u r e to a f f o r d p a r t i e s the o p p o r t u n i t y to be heard w i l l render Board proceedings r e v i e w a b l e . In l i g h t of the Code's o b j e c t i v e , one would expect the l e g i s l a t u r e to des ignate the Board i t s own master i n determin ing minimum standards of j u s t i c e f o r a l l purposes of the Code's procedures . That e x p e c t a t i o n caused confus ion at the o u t s e t , however. The u n c e r t a i n t y of the p o l i t i c i a n s dur ing the l e g i s l a t i v e d e b a t e s , whether the Code ought to exc lude the r u l e s , i s recorded i n Hansard. In the c l a u s e by c l a u s e examinat ion of the B i l l , the At to rney General debated the O p p o s i t i o n ' s c a l l f o r access to the c o u r t s . In the event of d e n i a l of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e , the At to rney General r e f u t e d t h a t j u d i c i a l redress was no longer p o s s i b l e . 42 Metro . L i f e Insurance Co v I n t ' l Union of Operat ing E n g i n e e r s , s u p r a , note 27. See a l s o Fores t I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s L t d . e t a l . v I n t ' l Union of Operat ing  E n g i n e e r s , Local 882 (1961) , 31 D .L .R . (2d) 319 ( S . C . C . ) , r e v e r s i n g 28 D .L .R . (2d) 249 ( B . C . C . A . ) , a f f i r m i n g ' t h a t the Labour (B .C . ) Board i s bound by the r u l e s ; Re N. -F .L .D. Assoc . of P u b l i c Employees and Carbonear  General H o s p i t a l (1978) , 87 D .L .R . (3d) ( N f t d . T .D . ) ( a f f i r m i n g , hence, that a labour board has no power to de legate i t s f u n c t i o n s i n the absence of s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i s a t i o n ) . "And when I suggest in this Bill that the right to goto the courts in terms of a denial of natural justice is still present, I say that it's present in termsof all our inferior tribunals in the Province of British Columbia It isn't true to say that regardless of any error there is no access to the courts... [I]n spite of ... [the privative,clause], the rules:of common law apply and the question of natural justice applies... . As I say, the unwritten laws of England apply to this inferior tribunal ... ."43 Compounding the uncertainty, the Minister of labour endorsed the 44 Attorney General's speech, yet reiterated to the House that the object of the legislation was to remove the judiciary from the Province's labour .. 45 relations. Which of the Minister's views prevails is unresolved. On the one hand, section 21, though empowering the Board to determine its own practice and procedure, stipulates that it "shall give full opportunity to the parties 46 to any proceedings to present evidence and to make submissions". In the normal case, a decision given in breach of that requirement would render it amenable to the prerogative writs. On the other hand, if breach of natural justice be a jurisdictional error, it is a logical necessity that a body empowered to determine the extent of its jurisdiction is empowered to determine whether it need comply with natural justice. 43 BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES (1973) (Third Session), at 926-27 per the Hon. A. MacDonald. 44 Ibid., at 927 per the Hon. W.S. King, commenting "[tlhe Attorney General has made the point very well ... ." 45 E.g., "[t]he dynamics of labour relations defy the strictures of the ancient prerogative writs of the courts, writs originated to meet very different problems from those which are faced today in labour relations;" ibid, at 397. 46 Emphasis added. 36. In t h i s sense , there i s a c o n f l i c t between the mandatory requirement of s e c t i o n 21 and the Board 's expansive s e c t i o n 33 j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t was e a r l y recogn ised by the Board t h a t the draftsman may not have a n t i c i p a t e d a l l the e f f e c t s o f the Code's major re forms. Observing t h a t " d i f f e r e n t par ts 47 of the Code may not f i t p e r f e c t l y t o g e t h e r " , the Board r e s o l v e d t h a t i t had a commitment to make the l e g i s l a t i o n work: " t o smooth o f f the rough edges 48 i n the l e g i s l a t i o n to the ex tent t h i s i s l e g a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e " . In t h a t c a s e , the Board adhered to i t s commitment by r e c o g n i s i n g the need " to a f f o r d 49 n a t u r a l j u s t i c e to the p a r t i e s , as embodied i n s . 2 1 " . In r e s o l v i n g t h u s , the Board d i d not go as f a r as to d i s c l a i m i t s s e c t i o n 33 j u r i s d i c t i o n to d ischarge i t s f u n c t i o n s i n d i s r e g a r d of the r u l e s , as indeed i t i s t e c h -n i c a l l y empowered to do. However, on the assumption t h a t the Board would be l o a t h to i n v i t e an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r review a t tendant on the r u l i n g t h a t i t had t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n , i t i s u n l i k e l y that, the Board w i l l renege on. i t s commitment to respec t the s e c t i o n 21 requi rement . F i n a l l y , it is not expected tha t a cour t would uphold a Board d e c i s i o n i n breach of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e under the t h i r d l imb of s e c t i o n 3 3 , c o n f e r r i n g " e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n . . . to determine . . . i n what manner i t s h a l l e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n " . I t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h i s Would be 47 Canadian Assoc . of I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and A l l i e d Workers, Local No. 1  ( B . C . ) e t a l . [1974] 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 2 2 , a t 25 . 48 I b i d . 49 I b i d . , a t 28. For the convent iona l r i g h t to make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , see Re Mars F ine Foods L t d (1954) , 54 C . L . L . C . para 1 5 , 122 ( B . C . S . C . ) ; M a r t i n and Robinson L t d v Labour R e l a t i o n s Board [1954]2 D .L .R . 622; Re Canadian Gypsum Co [1954] 1 D .L .R . 143. 37. construed as empowering the Board with regard to procedure not affecting . ..... 50 jurisdiction. (iii) Jurisdiction, "under this Act". The jurisdictional provisions pivot on section 33. The third argument on which a court might evade these provisions involves a restrictive interpretation of section 33. This requires focussing on the primary jurisdiction that the section confers on the Board: 5 1 namely, to determine the extent of its jurisdiction under this Act, ..." By so doing, it is possible to treat the Board's section 33 jurisdiction as being circumscribed by the jurisdiction possessed under the Code independently of section 33. The section 33 jurisdiction could not then be invoked by the Board to determine matters held, as a matter of statutory construction, to be in excess of the Code. Further, the fact that the jurisdiction conferred by section 33 is exclusive would not defeat this reasoning, nor therefore a court ruling that the Board had asked itself "the wrong question". The difficulty with this argument is that the Board, in determining the extent of its jurisdiction "under this Act", is also endowed by section 33 with the "exclusive jurisdiction ... to determine any fact or question of law 52 that is necessary to establish its jurisdiction". This second limb mandates 50 Cf., Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 882 et al., Forest  Industrial Relations Ltd et al. (1961), 28 D.L.R. (2d) 249 (B.C.C.A.), holding under the Labour Relations Act (B.C.) that the Board's power to determine its own practice and procedure (see now, the Code, s.28) did not extinguish the obligation to comply with natural justice. 51 Emphasis added. 52 Emphasis added. 38. the Board to construe the Act f o r the very purpose o f e s t a b l i s h i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . Furthermore, what the Code's p r o v i s i o n s enact are themselves quest ions a r i s i n g under the Act so as to f a l l e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h i n the Board 's s e c t i o n 34(1) j u r i s d i c t i o n . Hence, the Board i s i n s u l a t e d from j u d i c i a l review even were a cour t ab le to e s t a b l i s h , as a matter o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h a t the Board c la imed j u r i s d i c t i o n under s e c t i o n 33 on an erroneous view o f i t s e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e ; i n s h o r t , the f u n c t i o n o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n normal ly 53 reserved to the courts f o r t h i s purpose i s t r a n s f e r r e d to the Board . ( i v ) Ex te rna l law The ' e x t e r n a l law' approach i s an ex tens ion o f the t h i r d argument in t h a t i t too p o s t u l a t e s the r e s t r i c t i v e e f f e c t o f the words 54 "under t h i s A c t " . Although no more tenable than the t h i r d , t h i s approach i s one on which the B r i t i s h Columbia courts have i n t e r v e n e d . The f o l l o w i n g examines the development o f the d o c t r i n e and the Board 's response to i t . E. THE BOARD'S RETREAT (a) Re Pruden E a r l y i n the Code's o p e r a t i o n , the Board d i d not seek to q u a l i f y s e c t i o n 55 33. In Workmen's Compensation Board Employees e t a l . , the Board on a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f two Crown agencies was r e q u i r e d to determine 53 See p a r t i c u l a r l y s . 3 2 ( l ) , by re ference to s . 3 1 ( a ) , p r e c l u d i n g the c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n to review determinat ions o f law o r f a c t made under s . 3 3 . 54 s . 3 3 . 55 [1974] 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 135. whether the d o c t r i n e o f Crown immunity exempted the agencies from c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g under the Code. The Board noted tha t i t s p redecessor under the 56 Labour R e l a t i o n s Act had c o n s i s t e n t l y d e c l i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n . In h o l d i n g under the new l e g i s l a t i o n tha t the agencies were not exempt, the Board c o n f i n e d the i s s u e to "a very d i f f i c u l t ques t ion o f the ex ten t of i t s 57 j u r i s d i c t i o n under s . 3 3 " . Th is i n v o l v e d the Board i n a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 35 o f the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , g r a n t i n g the Crown's immunity from 58 s t a t u t e . In a p p l y i n g t h a t s e c t i o n , the Board made no mention o f p o s s i b l e j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y . In f a c t , the Board acknowledged i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the l e g i s l a t u r e , not the c o u r t s : "The l e g i s l a t u r e contemplated t h a t t h i s Board would take a r e s p o n s i b l e a t t i t u d e i n r e s p e c t i n g the l e g a l framework from which i t der i ves i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . By  the same t o k e n , when i t enacted p r o v i s i o n s such as  s s . 3 3 and 34, i t c e r t a i n l y d i d not envisage t h a t the  Board would adopt a narrow, l e g a l i s t i c approach i n  d e f i n i n g the scope o f i t s p o w e r s . . . . In a p p l y i n g such l e g a l concept as "Crown agency" , the Board must see t h a t i t f i t s s e n s i b l y i n t o the contemporary r e a l i t i e s o f i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s and l a b o u r law p o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia" .59 56 I b i d . , at 136. 57 I b i d . , at 135. 58 s . 3 5 reads : "No p r o v i s i o n or enactment i n any Act s h a l l a f f e c t i n any manner o r way whatsoever the r i g h t s o f Her M a j e s t y , He i rs o r s u c c e s s o r s , unless i t i s e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h e r e i n tha t her Majesty s h a l l be bound t h e r e b y . " 59 Supra , note 55 a t 136 (emphasis added). 40. This passage is not indicative of an administrative tribunal mindful of the prerogative writ; that the board's inquiry involved law external to the Code did not dissuade the Board from claiming exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of the matter. This is no longer the case. fio In Pruden v Assessment Authority of British Columbia, the Supreme Court held, quashing the decision of the Board, that the Board erred in its interpretation of the statute creating the British Columbia Assessment Authority. The Board assumed jurisdiction on the ground that the relevant sections of the Act and the Code were not in conflict. Section 20 of the Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act provides: "20(1)(a) [E]very person employed by the Crown or by a Municipality in respect of assessment, and who is designated by the authority, shall, ... be deemed to be an employee of the authority..." (2) Where there is a conflict between this Act and any other Act, this Act prevails. (3) The Labour Code of British Columbia Act applies to employees under this Act." The Authority did not designate Pruden, an employee of the municipality succeeded by the Authority, as an employee pursuant to section 20(l)(a). The Board held that the juxtaposition of this section and section 53 of the Code, governing employee successor rights, required the Authority to designate every person whose employment survives the succession; that the discretion reserved to the Authority pursuant to section 20(1)(a) was confined to those instances where there were legitimate business reasons for discontinuing the employment. 60 [1976] 6 WWR 185 (B.C.S.C.). 61 [1976] 2 Can. L.R.B.R. 138. 41 . However, quashing the order tha t Pruden be c o n s t i t u t e d an employee o f 62 the A u t h o r i t y , Hutcheon J . he ld t h a t the r i g h t to re-employment i n f e r r e d from s e c t i o n 53 o f the Code was repugnant to s e c t i o n 2 0 , . w h i c h c o n f e r r e d an u n f e t t e r e d d i s c r e t i o n to des ignate successor employees. On appeal Seaton J . A . , 6 3 d e l i v e r i n g judgment f o r the B r i t i s h Columbia Court of Appeal , upheld Hutcheon J'..s d e c i s i o n tha t theBoard e r red i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the e x t e r n a l s t a t u t e . The Board 's a t t i t u d e has. been to not cha l lenge the c o r r e c t n e s s of t h a t d e c i s i o n . In g r a n t i n g c e r t i o r a r i , Hutcheon J e q u i v o c a t e d : " I t may be argued tha t by reason of one or more s e c t i o n s o f The Labour Code, the board has e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to dec ide quest ions having to do w i th the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f The Labour Code. The same argument cannot be made w i t h r e s p e c t to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of o ther s t a t u t e s . " 6 4 The Board took the e a r l i e s t o p p o r t u n i t y to r e s o l v e h i s Honour's e q u i v o c a t i o n . ' Even before Hutcheon J.'s d e c i s i o n was r e p o r t e d , Chairman W e i l e r i n T ranspor t Labour R e l a t i o n s and General Truck Dr i ve rs r e s o l v e d t h a t s e c t i o n 33 d i d indeed i n s u l a t e from j u d i c i a l review "on ly Board 65 d e c i s i o n s i n t e r p r e t i n g : the Code, not our readings o f e x t e r n a l s t a t u t e s " . 62 I b i d . 63 [1977] 5 WWR 296 64 Supra , note 6 0 , a t 191 (emphasis added). 65 [1976] 2 Can. L . R . B . R . (dated 7 October 1976) , at 386. See a l s o a t 382, c i t i n g Hutcheon J ' s d e c i s i o n ( B . C . S . C . , dated 21 J u l y 1976). The mat ter was f i r s t r a i s e d by the Board i n J o i n t Counc i l o f Newspaper Unions and  P a c i f i c Press L td [1976] 2 Can. L . R . B . R . 324 (dated 12 August 1976) , a t 346 (though wi thout c i t i n g Pruden) . 4 2 . The second repor ted i n s t a n c e o f j u d i c i a l review o f a Board d e c i s i o n i s Re B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y . 6 6 The i s s u e was whether the Ft 7 B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y Act had e l i m i n a t e d the Board 's CO j u r i s d i c t i o n to enforce the Code's good f a i t h b a r g a i n i n g requirements pending changes to the Hydro pension scheme. The J o i n t Counci l o f Unions argued t h a t the Board 's d e c i s i o n a t t r a c t e d i t s s e c t i o n 33 j u r i s d i c t i o n . D i s a g r e e i n g , • the Board noted that the determinat ion i t was r e q u i r e d to make 69 " i s not one under t h i s Act (Labour Code)" . C i t i n g Pruden v Assessment  A u t h o r i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia: "That f a c t does not prevent the Board from proceeding t o determine the i s s u e , but i t a l lows t h a t d e c i s i o n to be rev iewable by the courts i n the normal manner".70 The Board determined t h a t the o b l i g a t i o n s imposed by the Code were compat ib le w i th the Hydro s t a t u t e , and r e j e c t e d the employer 's argument t h a t i t was r e l i e v e d o f the duty to n e g o t i a t e . The B r i t i s h Columbia Supreme Court 71 72 was o f cont ra ry o p i n i o n , f o l l o w i n g which the Supreme Court o f Canada upheld 73 the Court o f A p p e a l ' s d e c i s i o n to r e i n s t a t e the Board 's r u l i n g . 66 The i n i t i a l p roceeding i s repor ted 73 D.L .R. (3d) 103 ( B . C . S . C . ) per Murray J . 67 S . B . C . 1964, c . 7 , s s . 4 , 5 3 ( 1 ) ( 6 ) , 55 and 55A. 68' The Code, s s . 6 and 63 . 69 B r i t i s h Colubmia Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y and I n t ' l Brotherhood o f E l e c t r i c a l  Workers , L o c a l s 213 and 258 , e t a l . [1977] 1 C a n . L . R . B . R . 115, a t 120. 70 I b i d . 71 Supra , note 66. Murray J h e l d , quashing the Board 's d e c i s i o n , t h a t Hydro had an u n f e t t e r e d s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y to s e t up and a d m i n i s t e r the pension scheme. His Honour b e l i e v e d t h a t i t would be anomolous f o r Hydro to have a concomitant duty to n e g o t i a t e the same. 72 (1977) , 80 D .L .R . (3d) 159. 73 (1977) , 77 D.L .R . (3d) 283 ( r e v e r s i n g Murray J . ) . 4 3 . In the i n i t i a l proceeding before Murray J , the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the s u p e r i o r courts to review the Board 's d e c i s i o n on the Hydro s t a t u t e was not i n i s s u e , counsel f o r the. Board agree ing that the power e x i s t e d . 7 4 (The matter of j u r i s d i c t i o n was not again r a i s e d i n the a p p e a l s . ) J u d i c i a l review o f Board d e c i s i o n s i n v o l v i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n o f ' e x t e r n a l l a w ' , t h e n , seems s e t t l e d . The d i f f i c u l t y i n suppor t ing i t i n l i g h t o f the Board 's s e c t i o n 33 j u r i s d i c t i o n 75 i s d i s c u s s e d below. (b) S t a t u t e s I n c o r p o r a t i n g the Code The i n f l u e n c e o f Pruden i s e v i d e n t not only w i t h respect to the Board 's p r i n c i p a l j u r i s d i c t i o n under the Code. The B o a r d , by i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the powers c o n f e r r e d by the Code, i s e n t r u s t e d w i th the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a number o f labour s t a t u t e s o f s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n . The usual i n c o r p o r a t i o n c lause i s conta ined i n the E s s e n t i a l S e r v i c e s Disputes A c t : 7 7 "2(2) unless i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h i s A c t , the d e f i n i t i o n s , p r o v i s i o n s and procedures o f the Labour Code o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . . . a p p l y to t h i s A c t . " This c lause i s read i n con junc t ion w i th s e c t i o n 39A o f the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , s t i p u l a t i n g : 74 Supra , note 6 6 , at 104. 75 See i n f r a , F. THE JUDICIAL INCURSION. 76 L i s t e d by the Board , i n f r a , note 80 a t 403 . 77 S . B . C . 1973, c . 8 3 . 44. "39A. Where an enactment prov ides t h a t another enactment a p p l i e s , i t a p p l i e s wi th the necessary changes and so f a r as i t i s a p p l i c a b l e . " 7 8 79 S i x months p r i o r to Pruden, the Board e x p l a i n e d the l e g i s l a t i v e premise u n d e r l y i n g the reform of B r i t i s h Columbia labour law. In Canadian C e l l u l o s e 80 Co L t d e t a l . , i t e x p l a i n e d the i n t e g r a t e d p o l i c y o f the s t a t u t e s v e s t i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n in the B o a r d , a p o l i c y aimed at e s t a b l i s h i n g one body r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l phases o f the P r o v i n c e ' s labour r e l a t i o n s . In t h i s case the Board examined the i n c o r p o r a t i o n c lauses under the C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g Cont inuat ion 81 82 A c t . Quoting Hansard , the Board h e l d tha t i t had e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to a d m i n i s t e r the A c t , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a d e c i s i o n i n favour o f c o - o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the courts would be anathema to "the whole development o f l a b o u r law in t h i s p r o v i n c e " : tha t i t "would make a mockery o f the o r d e r l y system of d i spute s e t t l e m e n t . . . n o w o p e r a t i v e under the Code". For example: 78 Enacted S . B . C . 1976, c . 2 3 , s.14. C F . , Hea l th Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n v H o s p i t a l Employees Union (1978) , 78 C . L . L . C . para 14 , 174 ( B . S . C . S . ) , per Murray J . , commenting on the ground f o r d e c i s i o n i n Re Government of B r i t i s h  Columbia and R e g i s t e r e d Nurses A s s o c i a t i o n o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia , (1977) , 78 D.L .R. (3d) 737 ( B . C . C . A . ) . Murray J . accepted t h a t the Court o f Appea l ' s r u l i n g , t h a t the P u b l i c S e r v i c e s l a b o u r R e l a t i o n s A c t , S . B . C . 1973 (2nd s e s s . ) c .144 conta ined no mutat is mutandis c l a u s e , was made i n o v e r s i g h t of the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , S . 3 9 A . Murray J . commented t h a t S . 3 9 A "makes a mutat is  mutandis i n c o r p o r a t i o n c lause a p p l i c a b l e to a l l l e g i s l a t i o n such as s e c t i o n 26 o f the P u b l i c S e r v i c e s Labour R e l a t i o n s Act and s e c t i o n 2(2) o f the E s s e n t i a l S e r v i c e s Disputes A c t " . 79 Supra , n o t e , 60. 80 Canadian C e l l u l o s e Co L t d and P u l p , Paper and Woodworkers o f Canada, Local 4 , [1976] 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 400. 81 I b i d . The C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g Cont inuat ion A c t , S . B . C . 1975, c . 8 3 , s . 7 , r e c i t e s i t s own mutat is mutandis c lause in language e q u i v a l e n t to the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , S . 3 9 A . S e c t i o n 7 r e a d s , " [ u ] n l e s s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h i s A c t , the Labour Code o f B r i t i s h Columbia a p p l i e s , w i t h the necessary changes and so f a r as i t i s a p p l i c a b l e " . 82 I b i d . , a t 4 0 4 - 4 0 5 . 83 I b i d . , at 403 . 4 5 . " I t i s not d i f f i c u l t to imagine a s i t u a t i o n in which the p a r t i e s to a d ispute under the C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g C o n t i n u a t i o n Act would be r e q u i r e d to s h u t t l e back and f o r t h between the courts and the Board as the l e g a l r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f the d ispute un fo lded . "84 The Board repeated the p o l i c y opposing c o - o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n : " [ I ] t would be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th a fundamental l e g i s l a t i v e premise to have two t r i b u n a l s a d m i n i s t e r i n g one body of l a b o u r law. The major theme o f the 1973-4 reforms was the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f the Labour R e l a t i o n s Board as the body r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l phases o f l a b o u r p o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Apart from i t s f u n c t i o n s under the Labour Code, the Board was e n t r u s t e d w i th a l e g i s l a t i v e mandate under f i v e o t h e r s t a t u t e s - . . . The i n t e n t i o n of the l e g i s l a t u r e was to have one i n t e g r a t e d p e r s p e c t i v e on a l l f a c e t s of the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s , r a t h e r than s e v e r a l i s o l a t e d bodies each deve lop ing labour p o l i c y w i t h i n i t s own domain."85 R e c e n t l y , i n Medical A s s o c i a t e C l i n i c and H o s p i t a l Employees' Union 86 Loca l 180, the Board recons ide red i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n pursuant to the i n c o r p o r a t i o n c lauses i n the E s s e n t i a l S e r v i c e s Disputes A c t . This case i n v o l v e d an a p p l i c a t i o n under t h a t Act to have the Board dec la re a p p l i c a b l e 84 I b i d . 85 I b i d . See a l s o Squamish Terminals L t d and Canadian S tevedor ing Co L td and  P u l p , Paper and Woodworkers o f Canada, Local 3 [1975] 2 Can. L . R . B . R . 289 , a t 293. In McGavin Toastmaster Ltd and Bakery and Confect ionary Workers  I n t ' l Union Local 468 [1976] 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 440 , the f i r s t a p p l i c a t i o n to the Board f o r an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g Cont inuat ion A c t , the Board d i d not d i scuss i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n o t h e r than to comment, " [b]y v i r t u e o f s . 7 o f t h a t A c t , the Labour R e l a t i o n s B o a r d , a c t i n g under the r e l e v a n t p r o v i s i o n s o f the Labour Code, i s r e q u i r e d to deal w i t h d isputes a r i s i n g u n d e r . . . [ i t ] " . In Canadian C e l l u l o s e Co L t d e t . a l . , i b i d , at 4 0 1 , the Board e x p l a i n e d t h a t dictum t h u s : " . . . s . 7 o f the Act appears to i n c o r p o r a t e the Labour Code i n i t s  e n t i r e t y and w i t h i t the t r i b u n a l which i s charged (under P a r t II o f the Code) w i th the task o f i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and enforcement. S e c t i o n 7 e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s tha t ' the Labour Code a p p l i e s , w i t h the necessary changes and so f a r as i t i s a p p l i c a b l e ' , and there  i s no o ther agency, j u d i c i a l o r o therwise which i s prov ided f o r " . (Emphasis added.) 86 [1979] 1 Can. L . R . B . R . 33. 46. a s e c t i o n p e r m i t t i n g a union to e l e c t b i n d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n . Tomake t h i s d e c l a r a t i o n the Board was r e q u i r e d to f i r s t determine ( i n t e r a l i a ) whether the Union was a " h e a l t h care union" w i t h i n the meaning o f the E s s e n t i a l 87 S e r v i c e s Disputes A c t . As i n the e a r l i e r case i n v o l v i n g the C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g C o n t i n u a t i o n A c t , c o u n s e l ' s o b j e c t i o n was t h a t there was no_ j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the Board to a d m i n i s t e r the l e g i s l a t i o n ; i n M e d i c a l ; A s s o c i a t i o n C l i n i c et a l . counsel a rgu ing i n the a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t any j u r i s d i c t i o n i t possessed.was r e v i e w a b l e . The Board noted tha t counsel r e l i e d "on such cases as B r i t i s h American O i l Company L i m i t e d (1963) , 44 WWR 416; Lodum Holdings L t d (1968) 67 WWR 3 8 ; and Assessment A u t h o r i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia [1976] 6 WWR 1 8 5 " . 8 8 The Board d i d not comment on c o u n s e l ' s argument as to how Pruden v Assessment A u t h o r i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia a f f e c t e d the i s s u e , but p r o f f e r e d t h a t the combined e f f e c t o f the i n c o r p o r a t i o n c lauses was to render a p p l i c a b l e to the E s s e n t i a l S e r v i c e s 89 Disputes Act s e c t i o n s 3 1 , 33 and 34 o f the Code. The Board i n c l i n e d to the v iew, t h e n , t h a t not on ly d i d i t possess j u r i s d i c t i o n to decide matters ass igned by t h a t A c t , but a l s o t h a t i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n was e x c l u s i v e and 87 E s s e n t i a l S e r v i c e s Disputes A c t , s . 6 ( 1 ) , reads : "6(1) Where a f i r e - f i g h t e r s ' u n i o n , po l i cemen 's u n i o n , or h e a l t h care union and an employer . . . have bargained c o l l e c t i v e l y i n good f a i t h and f a i l to conclude a c o l l e c t i v e agreement or a renewal or r e v i s i o n of i t , the t rade union may e l e c t . . . to r e s o l v e the d i s p u t e by a r b i t r a t i o n . " See a l s o s . l , d e f i n i n g a " h e a l t h care u n i o n " . 88 Supra , note 8 6 , a t 36. 89 I b i d . , a t 37. 4 7 . unrev iewable . However, i n c o n t r a s t to the a t t i t u d e e a r l i e r expressed i n 90 c o n s t r u i n g the C o l l e c t i v e Barga in ing C o n t i n u a t i o n A c t , the Board e x p r e s s l y d e f i n e d to r u l e f u r t h e r than t h a t i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n , r e f u s i n g the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n v i t a t i o n to ho ld t h a t i n c o r p o r a t i o n of the Code negat ived the p o t e n t i a l f o r rev iew. The Board expressed i t s c a u t i o n t h u s : "This i s a b r i e f sketch of some of the arguments i n support o f the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the Board 's j u r i s d i c t i o n over the i ssues i n t h i s case - i n c l u d i n g the i s s u e of whether the HEU i s a h e a l t h care union -i s an e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n . Having g iven t h a t o u t l i n e , we should say t h a t i t i s not our i n t e n t i o n at t h i s time to express any f i r m view on tha t s u b j e c t . At an abso lu te minimum, i t i s c l e a r to us t h a t the Board i s l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d to e x e r c i s e an o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . . . . " 9 1 A l t h o u g h , as no ted , the Board d i d not i n d i c a t e how Pruden a f f e c t e d i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s A c t , the Board 's re fe rence to Heal th Labour 92 R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n v . H o s p i t a l Employees' Union i s a c l u e . In t h a t case Murray J . t r e a t e d the E s s e n t i a l S e r v i c e s Disputes Act as a s t a t u t e e x t e r n a l to the Code (the i n c o r p o r a t i o n c lauses n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g ) , but w h i c h , s u b j e c t to the c o u r t ' s power o f review of i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l s , the Board may i n t e r p r e t and apply f o r purposes o f the Code. Here, the ques t ion was whether the cour t had j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine whether an a r b i t r a t e d award under tha t Act c o n s t i t u t e d , a c o l l e c t i v e agreement. M u r r a y . J . he ld tha t s e c t i o n 34(1) of the Code d e a l t w i th "two 90 Canadian C e l l u l o s e Co L t d . e t a l . , s u p r a , notes 80 and 85. 91 Supra , note 8 6 , a t 38. 92 (1978) , 78 C . L . L . C . para 14, 174 ( B . C . S . C . ) noted by the Board , i b i d . , a t 3 7 - 3 8 . separate and d i s t i n c t m a t t e r s " . . F i r s t , h i s Honour accepted tha t i t confe rs e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o