Date: 20000310
Docket: A-650-98
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
STRAYER, J.A.,
ROTHSTEIN, J.A.
BETWEEN:
QUICK COACH LINES LTD
Applicant
- and -
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 31
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the Bench
at Vancouver on March 10, 2000)
RICHARD, C.J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review to set aside the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board dated September 30, 1998, certifying the union as the bargaining agent for a unit composed of "all drivers on the payroll of Quick Coach Lines Ltd". The ground relied on by the applicant is that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by granting certification for a unit other than the unit applied for under section 24 of the Code .
[2] The bargaining unit applied for was "all drivers, wash rack employees, and mechanics on the payroll of Quick Coach Lines Ltd excluding office, dispatch and sales staff".
[3] There were 36 drivers, 3 wash rack employees and 4 mechanics.
[4] The company asserted that as a result of a merger it was not the employer of the wash rack employees and mechanics. The company further contended that if the Board were to find that the unit proposed by the union was not appropriate, it should not create a different unit.
[5] After noting that it had full discretion to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board in light of all the evidence, was of the view that a unit composed of the drivers only was appropriate for collective bargaining. It added that, in the circumstances of the present case, the wash rack employees and mechanics did not share a sufficient community of interest with the drivers to be included in the bargaining unit composed of drivers.
[6] Given this conclusion, the Board added that it was not necessary to rule on the issue as to the identity of the true employer of the wash rack employees and mechanics.
[7] Having found that the union enjoyed the support of the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit comprised of drivers, the Board certified the union as the bargaining agent for that unit.
[8] The Canada Labour Relations Board is a highly specialized administrative tribunal and its decisions are protected by a very broad privative clause. Sections 3(1), 24(1), 27 and 28 of the Canada Labour Code confer on the Board a broad jurisdiction to determine whether or not a unit is appropriate for collective bargaining. Since the Board had jurisdiction to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, its decision must be upheld unless it is found to be patently unreasonable.
[9] The Board considered the pertinent factors and reached a reasonable decision.
[10] The applicant"s argument that the Board did not have the jurisdiction to grant certification to the union for a bargaining unit different from the one applied for by the union runs counter to the clear wording of subsection 27(2) of the Code which specifically empowers the Board to "include any employees in or exclude any employees from the unit proposed by the trade union". In requiring the Board to determine whether the bargaining unit is appropriate, the Board must have jurisdiction to consider alternative bargaining units.
[11] The applicant relies on the Prince Rupert Grain1 case to support its claim that the Board did not have jurisdiction to impose a different bargaining unit on the parties of its own creation. However, in that case, the Board gave its opinion that a single employer unit was not appropriate and suggested an alternative multi-employer unit. Multi-employer units are dealt with by section 33 of the Code and certification for such employers can only be granted where the union applies for such certification. Since the union had not applied for certification under section 33 of the Code, the Supreme Court stated that the Board could not unilaterally impose its opinion on the parties but simply put forward its position as a suggestion. There is no suggestion in subsection 27(2) of the Code that the Board requires the consent of the parties when it varies the proposed description of the bargaining unit.
[12] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
(Sgd.) "J. Richard"
C. J.
March 10, 2000
Vancouver, British Columbia
Date: 20000310
Docket: A-650-98
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
STRAYER, J.A.,
ROTHSTEIN, J.A.
BETWEEN:
QUICK COACH LINES LTD
Applicant
- and -
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 31
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 10, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 10, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: RICHARD, C.J.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-650-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Quick Coach Lines Ltd
v.
Teamsters Local Union No. 31
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: March 10, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF RICHARD, C.J.
DATED: March 10, 2000
APPEARANCES:
| Isreal Chafetz For the Applicant |
| Rebecca Murdock For the Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Taylor Jordon Chafetz
Barristers & Solicitors
| Vancouver, BC For the Applicant |
Rebecca Murdock
Barrister & Solicitor
| Delta, BC For the Respondent |
__________________
1 International Longshoremen"s and Warehousemen"s Union, Shop and Dock Foremen, Local 514 v. Prince Rupert Grain Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 432
Email this Content