The Government of Quebec and the City of Montreal dispute the suspension of arbitration to review the division of the cost of the pension plan of the police of the metropolis. Both believe that the referee did not have that power and that its decision is unduly delay the resolution of this issue.
On 1 June, the referee Claude Martin agreed to suspend the arbitration between Montreal and police imposed by the adoption of Law 15 on the sharing of the cost of municipal pension plans. He made this decision pending the determination of another application of the Society, challenging the constitutionality of the law.
The Finance Ministry, which is responsible for monitoring the application of the law 15 that the arbitrator had “no jurisdiction” to grant a stay. Quebec recalls that the cost-sharing pension plans Act provided for short time to reach a quick settlement of the case.
“The restructuring process initiated by Bill 15 goes through a phase of negotiations at the end of which, if unsuccessful, interest arbitration is initiated. This is a continuum that must lead to a result. Suspend interest arbitration is suspended full implementation of the process, “wrote Justice counsel. They believe that only a judge of the Superior Court would have the power to suspend the process.
Power ruled by law, according to city
The City of Montreal also believes that the law does not confer power on the referee to suspend the process. the metropolis of prosecutors indicate that the law that established the use of referees deliberately excluded this power. “The legislature did not want the arbitrator to issue safeguard orders,” it said.
Another arbitrator called upon to decide the case between Montreal to its professionals, René Beaupré, was also ordered to the arguments of the City and the Ministry of Finance. He also received a request for suspension, he refused to interrupt the discussions, saying that the law stemming from Bill 15 imposed tight deadlines.
Although the decision to Claude Martin gives him reason, the Montreal Police Brotherhood has also decided to appeal the decision. The union believes that the arbitrator does not go far enough because it does not specify to itself decide on the constitutionality of the law 15. The union believes instead that the arbitrator has the power, he asks superior Court confirm.