Docket: A-148-15
Citation:
2015 FCA 264
|
CORAM:
|
GAUTHIER J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RICHARD
CHAMPAGNE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS (IAMAW/AIMTA - DISTRICT 140)
|
|
Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
AIR CANADA AND
ANTONIO DE BENEDETTO
|
|
Third party
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 24, 2015.)
GAUTHIER J.A.
[1]
In his application for judicial review, Mr. Richard
Champagne challenged the decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the
Board) dismissing his complaint under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code
(R.S.C. (1985), c. L-2) (the Code).
[2]
As this Court previously decided in Dumont v.
Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Montréal Local, 2011 FCA 185 at paragraphs
33-34, [2011] F.C.A. No. 796, the standard of review applicable to matters
involving the Board’s interpretation of the provisions of the Code is that of
reasonableness. That is the same standard that applies to the Board’s rulings regarding
the application of section 37 of the Code to the particular circumstances
raised in a complaint, including a Board decision dealing with, as in this case,
the prima facie evaluation of such a complaint (Blanchet v. International
Assoc. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 712, 2009 FCA 103 at
paragraph 6, [2009] F.C.A. no. 399).
[3]
Nevertheless, the Applicant argues that the
applicable standard in this case is that of correctness because, in his view,
the Board simply refused to exercise its jurisdiction. We do not agree.
[4]
In its decision, the Board considered the nature
of the complaints before it, as well as the allegations therein. According to
the Board, the only real criticism made by the Applicant to the union is having
unreasonably and trivially interpreted an arbitral award issued at the request
of the union and the employer as part of an agreement undertaken by the Board
in its order no. 9996-U (amended).
[5]
After reiterating that its role in the context
of a complaint under section 37 of the Code is not to review the validity of a
union’s interpretation of a collective agreement or arbitral award, the Board
indicated that, in this case, the union had indeed justified and explained its interpretation
to the Applicant (and the other complainants). It was satisfied that no facts related
to the process leading to the contested decision made it possible to find that
the union had acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad
faith within the meaning of section 37 of the Code. On that basis, the Board ruled
that the complaint should be dismissed.
[6]
The Applicant has not persuaded us that the
Board’s interpretation regarding its role in the context of a complaint under
section 37 of the Code was unreasonable (in this regard, see Bomongo v.
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, 2010 FCA 126 at
paragraphs 11 and 18, [2010] F.C.J. No. 635). In his brief and before us, the
Applicant essentially just reiterated his disagreement with the interpretation of
the union’s arbitral award, which he considers trivial and unreasonable. Therefore,
we are satisfied that the Board’s finding is one potential and acceptable
outcome, considering the facts and the law.
[7]
The application for judicial review will be
dismissed with costs set at a lump sum of $3,000 (taxes and expenses included).
“Johanne Gauthier”
Certified true
translation
François Brunet,
Revisor
Email this Content