Date: 20120917
Docket: A-96-12
Citation: 2012 FCA 236
CORAM: NADON
J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS
J.A.
BETWEEN:
SANDRA
HUGHES
Applicant
and
CANADIAN AIRPORT WORKERS UNION
(CAWU STCA Canada) AND
GARDA SECURITY SCREENING INC.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on September 17, 2012)
STRATAS J.A.
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canada Industrial
Relations Board dated October 4, 2011 (CIRB LD 2649) and, with leave, a
reconsideration decision dated December 8, 2011(CIRB LD 2685).
[2]
In
these decisions, the Board dismissed the applicant’s complaint that her union
failed to refer to arbitration her grievance. Her grievance concerned her
demotion from a full-time position to a part-time position, and her assignment
as a Level III Screener following her transfer to the Toronto Pearson International Airport. The applicant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair
representation and acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily and in bad faith.
[3]
In
its first decision, after carefully reviewing the facts and the parties’
arguments, the Board ruled as follows:
Based on the facts presented, the Board is unable to
find that the union has treated the complainant in a manner that was arbitrary,
discriminatory or in bad faith with respect to her rights under the collective
agreement.
The Board finds that the union did what it was
required to do in the circumstances. The union made a reasoned decision not to
pursue the complainant’s grievance and communicated that decision to the
complainant.
[4]
In
its reconsideration decision, the Board declined the applicant’s request for
reconsideration, analyzing, among other things, her rights under the relevant
collective agreement. It concluded that there was nothing in the file before it
to suggest that the union did anything other than apply well-known labour law
principles to the situation of the applicant.
[5]
In
this Court, the applicant attacks the Board’s decisions on a number of substantive
and procedural grounds.
[6]
At
the outset of the hearing in this Court, the applicant sought to adduce
evidence of events that took place after the Board’s decisions. We ruled the
evidence inadmissible as it is not relevant to the issues before us.
[7]
The
applicant accepts that on substantive grounds the standard of review is
reasonableness. In her written submissions, and to some extent in her oral
submissions, the applicant alleges that the decisions are unreasonable because
the Board made perverse findings of fact, wrongly assumed certain facts,
overlooked certain evidence, did not explain why it rejected certain evidence,
did not made certain factual inferences, wrongly interpreted the collective
agreement, and failed to give appropriate weight to certain evidence.
[8]
In
substance, the applicant invites us on judicial review to reweigh the evidence
and substitute our findings of fact for those of the Board. The applicant’s
submissions smack of an invitation to this Court to retry the factual merits of
this matter before the Board. This is not our task under reasonableness
review, a standard of review that requires us to be deferential.
[9]
Having
examined both the record that was before the Board and the Board’s reasons for
its decisions, we consider that the Board reached an outcome that was
acceptable and defensible on the facts and the law before it. The Board had an
acceptable and defensible basis for finding that the union did not act
discriminatorily, arbitrarily or in bad faith. The Board’s decisions pass
muster under reasonableness review.
[10]
In
her procedural attack against the Board’s decisions, the applicant submits that
the Board should have held an oral hearing into the matter, rather than
deciding it on the basis of written materials and written submissions.
[11]
In
our view, the Board did not err in proceeding in the way it did. First, its
reasons expressly show that it reviewed all of the material on file and
considered it. Second, aware of the legal and factual issues before it, the
Board concluded that an oral hearing was unnecessary. The applicant has not
persuaded us that the Board erred in reaching this conclusion.
[12]
The
applicant also submitted that the Board’s reasons were inadequate and failed to
require the union to produce relevant documents. In our view, there is no merit
to these submissions.
[13]
Therefore,
we shall dismiss the application with costs.
"David Stratas"
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-96-12
(APPEAL
FROM AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE CANADA INDUSTIAL RELATIONS BOARD, DATED OCTOBER 4, 2011)
STYLE OF CAUSE: SANDRA
HUGES V CANADIAN AIRPORT WORKERS UNION
(CAWU STCA Canada) AND GARDA SECURITY SCREENING INC.
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: September 17, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF
THE COURT BY: (NADON,
DAWSON & STRATAS JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: STRATAS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Peter S. Carlisi
|
FOR
THE APPLICANT
|
|
Denis W. Ellickson
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENTS
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Kapelos & Carlisi
Barristers
& Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Caley Wray Barristers &
Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
|
Email this Content