Citation: 2006 FCA 360
BETWEEN:
MARITIME EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATION
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.
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)
[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:
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Longueuil, Quebec |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|