Date:
20130417
Docket:
A-364-12
Citation:
2013 FCA 106
CORAM: BLAIS
C.J.
STRATAS
J.A.
NEAR
J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN AIRPORT WORKERS UNION
Applicant
and
GARDA SECURITY SCREENING INC.
Respondent
and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS
AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
Respondent
Heard
at Toronto, Ontario, on April 17, 2013.
Judgment
delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 17, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BY: NEAR J.A.
Date:
20130417
Docket:
A-364-12
Citation:
2013 FCA 106
CORAM: BLAIS
C.J.
STRATAS
J.A.
NEAR
J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN AIRPORT WORKERS UNION
Applicant
and
GARDA SECURITY SCREENING INC.
Respondent
and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS
AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 17, 2013)
NEAR J.A.
[1]
This
application for judicial review of the Canada Industrial Relation Board’s (“the
Board”) July 20, 2012 reconsideration decision (2012 CIRB 651 (“the 651
Decision”)) is the latest in a series of challenges brought by the Applicant –
the Canadian Airport Workers Union (“the CAWU”) – to the results of a
representation vote conducted by the Board in March 2012. By way of these
challenges, the CAWU contests its displacement as bargaining agent for a unit
of employees of the Respondent Garda Security Screening Inc. by the Respondent
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
[2]
While
the application purports to be for judicial review of the Board’s most recent
decision, the 651 Decision, the CAWU’s submissions go to the substance of all
of the decisions rendered by the Board in this matter.
[3]
When
reviewing a tribunal’s reconsideration decision, this Court has long held that
it will not look at the decision – or decisions – sought to be reconsidered
(see Lamoureux v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Assn., [1993] F.C.J. No. 1128
[Lamoureux] at para. 2). Furthermore, the prescribed time limits set out
in the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 have passed. The only
decision properly before this Court is thus the 651 Decision. Accordingly, all
of the CAWU’s submissions relating to decisions other than the 651 Decision are
dismissed as untimely collateral attacks on those prior decisions.
[4]
In
its application for judicial review of the 651 Decision, the CAWU submits that
the Board erred in failing to disclose to the CAWU its confidential internal
investigation into the electronic voting process and in failing to hold a
hearing. It also submits that the 651 Decision is unreasonable on its merits.
We reject these submissions.
[5]
First,
the Board did in fact disclose some of the findings from its investigation in
the 651 Decision (see especially paras 24-27 of the Board’s decision). Its
decision not to provide full details of all of the safeguards in place to
prevent voter fraud in its electronic votes was a matter squarely within its labour
relations mandate, which, as an expert administrative body, is owed deference. Even
if the standard of review was correctness the CAWU has not persuaded us that
the Board erred. Nor has the CAWU persuaded us that the Board erred in not
granting an oral hearing.
[6]
On
the substantive matters decided by the Board in the 651 Decision, it is well
established, as counsel for the CAWU candidly conceded, that the standard of
review is the deferential standard of reasonableness. In our view, the Board’s
decision is reasonable as it falls within the range of acceptable outcomes
defensible on the facts and the law.
[7]
Therefore,
for the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal with costs.
“D.G. Near”
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-364-12
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF THE DECISION OF THE CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD DATED JULY 20, 2012.
STYLE
OF CAUSE: CANADIAN AIRPORT
WORKERS UNION v. GARDA
SECURITY
SCREENING INC. v.
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND
AEROSPACE
WORKERS
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April
17, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF
THE COURT BY: BLAIS
C.J., STRATAS J.A. & NEAR J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH: NEAR
J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Michael
Church
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
Michel
Brisebois
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
Michael
D. Wright
Elicahi
Shaffir
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
CaleyWray
Labour/Employment Lawyers
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
BCF
LLP
Montreal, Quebec
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
Cavalluzzo,
Shilton, McIntyre, Cornish LLP
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|