Date: 19980306
Docket: A-812-97
CORAM: PRATTE J.A.
DENAULT J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
| IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADA LABOUR CODE, R.S.C., 1985, |
| C. L-2, AND THREE COMPLAINTS OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES MADE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 97(1) THEREOF |
BETWEEN:
SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉES ET EMPLOYÉS
PROFESSIONNELS-LES ET DE BUREAU,
SECTION LOCALE 434
1200 Papineau Street, Suite 250
Montréal, Quebec, H2K 4S6
Applicant
- and -
LAURENTIAN BANK OF CANADA
1981 McGill College Avenue
Montréal, Quebec, H3A 3K3
Respondent
- and -
L'ASSOCIATION DES CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS
DE LA BANQUE LAURENTIENNE DU CANADA
(GROUPE DES 62 CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS)
630 René-Lévesque Blvd. West, Suite 2855
Montréal, Quebec, H3B 1S6
Third Party
- and -
CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervener
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Monday, March 2 and Friday, March 6, 1998.
Judgment delivered from the bench on Friday, March 6, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PRATTE J.A.
Date: 19980306
Docket: A-812-97
CORAM: PRATTE J.A.
DENAULT J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
| IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADA LABOUR CODE, R.S.C., 1985, C. L-2, AND THREE COMPLAINTS OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES MADE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 97(1) THEREOF |
BETWEEN:
SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉES ET EMPLOYÉS
PROFESSIONNELS-LES ET DE BUREAU,
SECTION LOCALE 434
1200 Papineau Street, Suite 250
Montréal, Quebec, H2K 4S6
Applicant
- and -
LAURENTIAN BANK OF CANADA
1981 McGill College Avenue
Montréal, Quebec, H3A 3K3
Respondent
- and -
L'ASSOCIATION DES CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS
DE LA BANQUE LAURENTIENNE DU CANADA
(GROUPE DES 62 CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS)
630 René-Lévesque Blvd. West, Suite 2855
Montréal, Quebec, H3B 1S6
Third Party
- and -
CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervener
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec
on Friday, March 6, 1998)
PRATTE J.A.
[1] The applicant trade union has been certified for several years as the bargaining agent for the employees of the respondent bank. In 1996, it made three complaints against the respondent pursuant to section 97 of the Canada Labour Code. The complaints related to the respondent"s conduct toward a group of employees known as "financial consultants". On December 3, 1996, after hearing the parties at a pre-hearing conference, the Board decided to begin by applying subsection 20(1) of the Code to determine an issue common to all three complaints: whether the financial consultants were actually part of the bargaining unit represented by the applicant. On October 10, 1997, after a long inquiry interrupted by several adjournments, the Board issued a final interim decision which first held that the financial consultants were indeed part of the bargaining unit and then fragmented the bargaining unit by placing the financial consultants in a new unit. This application for judicial review is against the second part of the decision.
[2] The main ground submitted by the applicant is that the Board violated the audi alteram partem rule by deciding to fragment the bargaining unit without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard on the issue.
[3] The applicant does not dispute that the Board could, proprio motu, amend, alter or vary its previous decisions grouping the respondent"s employees into a single bargaining unit. However, the applicant argues"rightly"that the Board could not do so without giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard.
[4] After deciding in December 1996 that it would hold public hearings solely to determine whether the financial consultants were part of the bargaining unit represented by the applicant, the Board could not decide on completion of the hearings to fragment the bargaining unit without giving the parties very clear and timely notice of its intention to determine this new issue so as to permit them to submit any evidence and make any representations they considered necessary on the subject.
[5] After carefully reading all the passages from the transcript of the Board"s hearings to which the parties referred us, we are satisfied that no such notice was given. Of course, as counsel for the respondent was careful to tell us, the appropriateness of placing the financial consultants in a separate bargaining unit was often discussed at the hearings. It is easy to see why: a number of the factors which might lead to the conclusion that the financial consultants were or were not part of the bargaining unit represented by the applicant could also lead to the conclusion that they should perhaps be in a separate bargaining unit.
[6] The application will accordingly be allowed and the part of the Board"s decision which fragmented the bargaining unit represented by the applicant will be quashed.
Louis Pratte
J.A.
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19980306
Docket: A-812-97
IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADA LABOUR CODE, R.S.C., 1985, C. L-2, AND THREE COMPLAINTS OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES MADE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 97(1) THEREOF
BETWEEN:
SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉES ET EMPLOYÉS
PROFESSIONNELS-LES ET DE BUREAU,
SECTION LOCALE 434
1200 Papineau Street, Suite 250
Montréal, Quebec, H2K 4S6
Applicant
- and -
LAURENTIAN BANK OF CANADA
1981 McGill College Avenue
Montréal, Quebec, H3A 3K3
Respondent
- and -
L'ASSOCIATION DES CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS
DE LA BANQUE LAURENTIENNE DU CANADA
(GROUPE DES 62 CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS)
630 René-Lévesque Blvd. West, Suite 2855
Montréal, Quebec, H3B 1S6
Third Party
- and -
CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervener
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-812-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: Syndicat des employées et employés
professionnels-les et de bureau, section
locale 434 v. Laurentian Bank of Canada
et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: Monday, March 2, 1998 and
Friday, March 6, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: Pratte J.A.
Denault J.A.
Desjardins J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Pratte J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Claude Tardif for the applicant
André Asselin for the respondent
Johane Tremblay for the intervener
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Rivest, Schmidt
Montréal, Quebec for the applicant
Martineau, Walker
Québec, Quebec for the respondent
Legal Services
Canada Labour Relations Board
Ottawa, Ontario for the intervener
LeBrun, Savoie, Joubert
Montréal, Quebec for the third party
Date: 19980306
Docket: A-812-97
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 6th DAY OF MARCH 1998
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRATTE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DESJARDINS
BETWEEN:
SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉES ET EMPLOYÉS
PROFESSIONNELS-LES ET DE BUREAU,
SECTION LOCALE 434
Applicant
AND
LAURENTIAN BANK OF CANADA
Respondent
AND
L'ASSOCIATION DES CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS
DE LA BANQUE LAURENTIENNE DU CANADA
(GROUPE DES 62 CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS)
Third Party
JUDGMENT
The application is allowed and the part of the impugned decision which fragmented the bargaining unit represented by the applicant is quashed.
Louis Pratte
J.A.
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas