Syndicat des Travailleurs et Travailleuses des Postes v. Beaudet-Fortin, docket A-23-98

     Date: 19991126

     Docket: A-23-98

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1999

CORAM:      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL

CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS

Applicant

AND

NATHALIE BEAUDET-FORTIN

Respondent

AND

CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Third Party

JUDGMENT

     The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.

Robert Décary

J.A.

Certified true translation

Martine Brunet, LL.B.

Date: 19991126

    

Docket: A-23-98

CORAM:      DÉCARY

LÉTOURNEAU

NOËL, JJ.A.

Between:

CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS

Applicant

AND

NATHALIE BEAUDET-FORTIN

Respondent

AND

CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Third Party

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Pronounced at the hearing in Montréal, Quebec

on Friday, November 26, 1999)

DÉCARY J.A.

[1]      The Canada Labour Relations Board unanimously allowed a complaint of unfair practice brought by the female respondent against the applicant union. Two Board members "stated" that paragraph 8.02(f) of the union"s articles is discriminatory to the extent that it authorizes the complainant"s expulsion from the union for the sole reason that she participated in raiding activities allowed by the Code and "[Translation ] that paragraph 8.02 of the union"s articles do not apply in this case". The third member limited herself to ruling "[Translation ] that by exercising its disciplinary authority in regard to the complainant as it did, the union applied its disciplinary standards and its membership rules under paragraphs 95(f) and (g) of the Code in a discriminatory manner."

     Paragraphs 95(f) and (g) state:

95. No trade union or person acting on behalf of a trade union shall

(f) expel or suspend an employee from membership in the trade union or deny membership in the trade union to an employee by applying to the employee in a discriminatory manner the membership rules of the trade union;

(g) take disciplinary action against or impose any form of penalty on an employee by applying to that employee in a discriminatory manner the standards of discipline of the trade union;

and paragraph 8.02 of the union"s articles, which applies to a member who has participated in acts of raiding against the unions, states:

[Translation]

8.02      The following sanctions may be taken against a member or officer of the union or a local:

(a)      written reprimand;

(b)      suspension from duties for a specific period of time;

(c)      removal from office;

(d)      prohibition for a specific period of time from holding office within the union or a local;

(e)      suspension from membership for a specific period of time;

(f)      expulsion from the union.

[2]      It is not necessary, in our opinion, to spend any time on the initial conclusion adopted by the majority since, in any case, the members were unanimous on the second conclusion, namely: in this case the application of the rule (whether or not the rule is discriminatory in itself) is discriminatory. This conclusion is not unreasonable in the circumstances.

[3]      The application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs.

     Robert Décary

     J.A.

Certified true translation

Martine Brunet, LL.B.

Federal Court of Canada

Appeal Division

Date: 19991126

    

Docket: A-23-98

Between:

CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS

Applicant

AND

NATHALIE BEAUDET-FORTIN

Respondent

AND

CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Third Party

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET NO:              A-23-98

STYLE:                  CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS

Applicant

AND

NATHALIE BEADET-FORTIN

Respondent

AND

CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Third Party

PLACE OF HEARING:          Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:          November 26, 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY DÉCARY, LÉTOURNEAU AND NOËL JJ.A.

DATED:                  November 26, 1999

APPEARANCES:

Paul Lesage                                  for the Applicant

Claude Tardif /

Gaétan Lévesque                              for the Female Respondent

Dominique Launay                              for the Third Party

---

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

TRUDEL, NADEAU, LESAGE,

LARIVIÈRE & ASSOCIÉS

Montréal, Quebec                              for the Applicant

RIVEST, SCHMIDT

Montréal, Quebec                              for the Female Respondent

CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Ottawa, Ontario                              for the Third Party