Date: 20110505
Docket: T-612-11
Citation: 2011 FC
528
Ottawa, Ontario, May 5, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Simon Noël
BETWEEN:
|
|
CANADA POST CORPORATION
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
A motion
was brought by the Applicant to stay the decision of an Appeals Officer of the
Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada, confirming a decision to amalgamate a
separate health and safety committee for the Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers
(RSMC) onto the National Joint Health and Safety Committee (NJHSC) for
employees in the Urban Postal Operations group (UPO). The relief sought by the
moving party is to keep two (2) separate health and safety committees until a
final determination of the underlying issues.
[2]
The
tripartite test for a stay of a decision as expressed in RJR – MacDonald v
Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 is well set out, wherein the
Supreme Court stated that three (3) factors must be assessed by the Court upon
motion for a stay: (1) whether there is a serious issue to be tried; (2)
whether irreparable harm would result if the stay is not granted; and (3)
whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of a stay.
[3]
Considering
the low threshold for a serious issue to be tried to be found, this aspect of
the test is met in the circumstances.
[4]
In terms
of the “irreparable harm” alleged by the moving party, it can be said that the
grounds alleged pertain to administrative inconvenience, augmented workload and
logistical hurdles. The moving party cites the following as consequences and
harm of the merging of the two (2) committees. It is also argued that the past
inefficiencies of the UPO-NJHSC are to be exacerbated in the event of a joining
of the committees. The main grounds for irreparable harm alleged are:
a.
There
would be a significant increase in the time required for management personnel
to prepare for meetings.
b.
Canada
Post’s ability to have most knowledgeable members participate in NJHSC
discussions would be impeded by the creation of a combined committee.
c.
The vast
majority of issues discussed at the UPO-NJHSC have no application to RSMCs.
d.
There is a
finite amount of time available for NJHSC meetings. The addition and complexity
of RSMC issues in a combined committee setting will result in less time to
address RSMC and/or UPO issues.
e.
The
UPO-NJHSC is already overworked with respect to the number of issues before it
and the time required to deal with those issues.
f.
Issues and
inefficiencies have arisen within the UPO-NJHSC: delays in the elaboration of
the training packages; communication of information to members; translation of
documents; and the alleged bargaining of health and safety training against
labour relations issues.
[5]
The
Federal Court of Appeal held in Laperrière v D. & A. MacLeod Company
Ltd., 2010 FCA 84 that mere administrative inconvenience does not
constitute irreparable harm. The harm alleged in the present Motion reaffirming
that the nature of the harm alleged is not sufficient to prove to be
irreparable. Also, the obiter in Laperrière, above, at paragraph
20, is on point:
Even if “time, energy and money” would be
wasted, the appellant has failed to particularize adequately the nature and
amount of waste. Indeed, as best as can be determined from the affidavit
offered in support of the stay – and the affidavit is unclear on this point –
perhaps only a few days of work might be wasted.
[6]
Thus, the
Court finds that the harm alleged is not irreparable, and for this reason, the
tripartite test of RJR McDonald, above, is not met.
[7]
The Court
would, however, like to reaffirm the importance of health and safety committees
and the importance of their efficient work as determinative of the safety of
employees. The Court encourages both parties to efficiently and in good faith
ensure the proper and timely administration of the health and safety committee
until final determination of the underlying application.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that: the Motion is denied. Costs of
this motion shall be in the cause.
“Simon Noël”