Date: 20061106
Docket: A-72-06
Citation: 2006 FCA 360
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARITIME EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATION
Appellant
and
SYNDICAT DES DÉBARDEURS
C.U.P.E.
LOCAL 375
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on November 6, 2006.
Judgement
delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 6, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY
J.A.
Date:
20061106
Docket: A-72-06
Citation: 2006 FCA 360
CORAM: DESJARDINS
J.A.
DÉCARY
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARITIME
EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATION
Appellant
and
SYNDICAT DES DÉBARDEURS C.U.P.E.
LOCAL 375
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 6, 2006)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1]
An
inspector employed by the Montréal Port Authority (MPA) lost his life while he
was working on the work premises operated by Terminal Racine, in the Port of Montréal. Terminal Racine is an employer and member of
the Maritime Employers’ Association (the MEA), which is an employer’s
representative and includes various maritime employers. The MEA is also a
stakeholder in the longshoremen’s collective agreement.
[2]
An inquiry
was thereupon conducted by health and safety officer Sirois pursuant to
sections 140 et seq. of Part II of the Canada Labour Code (the
Code). Officer Sirois found that there was a danger in the workplace and,
relying on subsection 145(2), he issued directions to MPA, Terminal Racine
and the MEA to take measures to correct the situation in the future.
[3]
The MEA
appealed this decision to appeals officer Guénette, pursuant to sections 145.1
et seq. of the Code. Essentially, it alleged that it was not the employer
contemplated by Part II of the Code, that it has no control whatsoever
over the stevedoring operations effected by the maritime employers, that it
does not have any workplace where stevedoring operations are carried out and
that it has no control over the work activities at the workplaces at issue
(section 125 of the Code). In short, the MEA submits that it is excluded
from the operation of Part II of the Code with regard to occupational health
and safety.
[4]
Appeals
officer Guénette confirmed officer Sirois’ decision.
[5]
The MEA
sought a judicial review of appeals officer Guénette’s decision.
Mr. Justice de Montigny, of the Federal Court, dismissed the
application (2006 FC 66). He stated that in his opinion the appeals
officer’s findings “must be treated with the greatest deference” and that
“error must be obvious for it to entail quashing his decision” (paragraph 47).
He applied the standard of review of “patent unreasonableness” and determined
that the impugned decision did not meet this stringent standard.
[6]
We agree
in essence with the remarks by de Montigny J. The MEA is in a hybrid
position. Given the fact that in practice it is an employer’s organization for
employers of longshoremen whose health and safety are at issue, its status as
employer representative for the purposes of the collective agreement signed
with the Syndicat des débardeurs, and the undertakings that it makes on its
behalf in this agreement in health and safety matters, it cannot be excluded
from the application of Part II of the Canada Labour Code.
[7]
The appeal
shall be dismissed with costs.
“Robert Décary”
Certified true
translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL,
LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-72-06
APPEAL
FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE de MONTIGNY, OF THE FEDERAL
COURT, DATED JANUARY 24, 2006, DOCKET NO. T‑213‑05.
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARITIME
EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATION v. SYNDICAT DES DÉBARDEURS C.U.P.E. LOCAL 375
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 6, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DÉCARY J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
André Giroux
|
FOR
THE APPELLANT
|
|
Jacques Lamoureux
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
OGILVY RENAULT
Montréal,
Quebec
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
LAMOUREUX, MORIN, LAMOUREUX
Longueuil, Quebec
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content