- 26 -
that there is now “a general duty of honest contractual performance” of contracts: Bhasin v
Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71,  S.C.J. No. 71. Although a collective agreement is a form of
contract that has special attributes, it is nonetheless a contract.
 The Supreme Court applied its own decision in Bhasin to an employment contract,
although not a collective agreement, in Potter v New Brunswick Legal Aid Services
Commission, 2015 SCC 10,  S.C.J. No. 10. At paragraph 99, the Court said, “At a
minimum, acting in good faith in relation to contractual dealings means being honest, reasonable,
candid, and forthright”, citing Bhasin.
 The approach was followed in respect of the administration of a collective agreement in
Global Edmonton v Unifor Local M-1 (Meal Periods Grievance),  A.G.A.A. No. 51, 263
L.A.C. (4th) 363 (Sims) at paragraphs 93, 94 and 104.
 Arbitrator Sims’ approach was endorsed in Unimin Canada Ltd v Communications,
Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 306-0 (Journeyman Bonus Grievance),
 O.L.A.A. No. 308, 271 L.A.C. (4th) 225 (Steinberg).
 The point was squarely made in Toronto Western Hospital v Canadian Union of Public
Employees, Local 5001 (Policy Grievance),  O.L.A.A. No. 391 (Knopf). At paragraph
45, the Arbitrator said this:
While this Collective Agreement does not contain any explicit reference to
reasonableness, arbitrators have to infer that the parties negotiated the concept of
reasonableness into the terms of their collective agreement: see International
Nickel Co of Canada and USWA, Local 6500, supra, at para. 12. To interpret a
collective agreement any other way would be to infer that management has
retained a right to be unreasonable. That does not make labour relations sense
anymore. Therefore, it must be concluded that the exercise of management's right
in this Collective Agreement to “select” an employee is subject to both the
Collective Agreement’s job posting provisions and the requirement that this
function will be exercised reasonably. Any questions of whether these
requirements are met involves determinations concerning the application,
administration, interpretation and potential violation of the job posting and
management's obligation to act reasonably under the Collective Agreement. Given
the unique context and allegations in this case, these questions all fall within the
jurisdiction of an arbitrator.
 Although the selection of an employee involves some discretion, an Alberta arbitrator
recently stated this (United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta Health Services (Shaver Grievance),
 A.G.A.A. No. 52 (Yingst Bartel), at paragraph 49:
[I]t is implicit in the requirement of good faith … that a discretionary decision
taken by the Employer must be based on relevant factor and – conversely – must
not consider irrelevant factors.
 The approach to considering grievances challenging a promotion was set out in Northern
Telecom Ltd v UAW, Local 1839, 25 L.A.C. (2d) 379, summarized in Lethbridge (City) v
CUPE, Local 70, A.G.A.A. 2000-082, 2000 CarswellAlta 1819 (Moreau), and that was recently
quoted in McKesson Canada Corp v United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union,
Local No. 401 (Tamon Grievance),  A.G.A.A. No. 50 (Casey). This is the approach:
Classification: Protected A