An Ontario judge will rule next week whether ACTRA’s current strike and use of controversial continuation letters are lawful or should be halted.

Justice Sarah Pepall of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard oral arguments this week in a lawsuit brought against ACTRA by the CFTPA that fingered the actors union for flouting negotiating and dispute-resolution protocols outlined in the Independent Production Agreement.

But lawyers for ACTRA told Justice Pepall that union members are conducting a lawful strike under the terms of the 1995 Labour Relations Act, which supersede ‘voluntary’ IPA protocols.

In a case that turns on duelling legal interpretations and jurisdictions, CFTPA lawyer John Rook of Bennett Jones LLP argued that ACTRA should be reined in by the court for abandoning the IPA protocols.

Rook also insisted ACTRA’s continuation letters amounted to ‘an economic weapon’ that gives actors a leg-up as they negotiate a replacement IPA. Around 120 producers have been spared picketing by offering actors a 5% wage and 2% benefits hike, according to ACTRA.

The CFTPA lawyer argued ACTRA acted in bad faith when it quickly followed the start of bargaining on Oct. 23, 2006 by, a day later, filing for conciliation in Ontario under the Labour Relations Act, while starting to sign individual deals with producers. ACTRA subsequently filed separate conciliation processes in eight other provinces, including Quebec and Manitoba.

‘After the first day, ACTRA chose to start a process that does not follow the [IPA] process. They went out, having ignored the protocols, and signed producers up anyways,’ Rook argued.

After challenging the actors’ status as employees in a bona fide union, Rook asked the court to name an arbitrator under the 1991 Arbitration Act, and to restrain ACTRA from using current continuation letters, signing new ones, and carrying on with its strike.

But lawyers for the actors union told the Ontario judge that her court had no jurisdiction to offer injunctive relief to CFTPA because ACTRA has followed the statutory preconditions of the provincial labor relations boards.

‘It is ACTRA’s position – a position that it has consistently taken before the Ontario Labour Relations Board – that the IPA is a collective agreement and that ACTRA’s members are employees who are subject to the Ontario Labour Relations Act,’ argued ACTRA lawyer Paul Cavalluzzo of Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton LLP.

ACTRA also held its continuation letters are lawful, telling the court that it began signing ‘interim agreements’ during the 1995 IPA bargaining round at the producers’ request.

ACTRA filed documents with the court indicating that it reintroduced continuation letters in 2001 ‘after the CFTPA/APFTQ and certain American producers publicly pressured ACTRA and its members to do so by accusing them of fostering industry instability and driving production out of Canada,’

No bargaining sessions are scheduled between ACTRA and the CFTPA, as both sides await the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.