The Journal does not provide an abstract, but Professor Craven has kindly provided the editor's summary:
The principal elements of just cause protection for
unionized workers in
the context of industrial discipline can be summed up
in what the author refers
to as the “four Rs”: reasons, reinstatement,
equitable relief, and representation.
While the scope and meaning of just cause came to be
fully developed in the
arbitral jurisprudence of the 1960s and 1970s,
several of its core aspects are
of considerably older provenance. This paper throws
light on a little-known
chapter in the development of the “common law of the
shop” by reporting on the
results of primary research into mostly unreported
arbitration awards in discipline cases, conducted under the auspices of the Ontario
Department of Labour in the wartime and immediate post-war periods.
Although they did not set out to create a systematic jurisprudence, the arbitrators in
those early cases clearly anticipated the established model of corrective and
industrial discipline: they gave effect to a requirement for reasons; reinstated
employees found innocent of allegations of wrongdoing and awarded
compensation; articulated a need for prior warnings and a culminating incident; “made the
punishment fit the crime”by substituting lesser penalties and taking into
account mitigating factors such as length of service; and afforded a measure of
protection to union officials against reprisal while emphasizing their
responsibility for securing compliance with grievance procedures. Ultimately, the author
argues, the early arbitrators saw their role chiefly as the cultivation of
workplace harmony and avoidance of work
stoppages, seeking to reconcile industrial unionism with industrial peace.
