|
|
|
 Printer-Friendly Page
Date: 20030225
Docket: A-32-02
Montréal, Quebec, February 25, 2003
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
SOCIÉTÉ RADIO-CANADA
Applicant
and
ASSOCIATION DES RÉALISATEURS
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
"Alice Desjardins"
Judge
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Date: 20030225
Docket: A-32-02
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 102
Montréal, Quebec, February 25, 2003
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
SOCIÉTÉ RADIO-CANADA
Applicant
and
ASSOCIATION DES RÉALISATEURS
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on February 25, 2003.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 25, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20030225
Docket: A-32-02
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 102
Montréal, Quebec, February 25, 2003
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
SOCIÉTÉ RADIO-CANADA
Applicant
and
ASSOCIATION DES RÉALISATEURS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec,
on February 25, 2003.)
NOËL J.A.
[1] We have not been persuaded that the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board)
made any error warranting our intervention. In this respect, subsections 22(1) and (2) of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., c L-2 (the Code) provide:
|
22. (1) Subject to this Part, every order or decision of the Board is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court, except in accordance with the Federal Court Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.1(4)(a), (b) or (e) of that Act.
|
22. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente partie, les ordonnances ou les décisions du Conseil sont définitives et ne sont susceptibles de contestation ou de révision par voie judiciaire que pour les motifs visés aux alinéas 18.1(4)a), b) ou e) de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale et dans le cadre de cette loi.
|
|
(2) Except as permitted by subsection (1), no order, decision or proceeding of the Board made or carried on under or purporting to be made or carried on under this Part shall
(a) be questioned, reviewed, prohibited or restrained, or
(b) be made the subject of any proceedings in or any process of any court, whether by way of injunction, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto or otherwise,
on any ground, including the ground that the order, decision or proceeding is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board to make or carry on or that, in the course of any proceeding, the Board for any reason exceeded or lost its jurisdiction.
|
(2) Sauf exception prévue au paragraphe (1), l'action - décision, ordonnance ou procédure - du Conseil, dans la mesure où elle est censée s'exercer dans le cadre de la présente partie, ne peut, pour quelque motif, y compris celui de l'excès de pouvoir ou de l'incompétence à une étape quelconque de la procédure :
a) être contestée, révisée, empêchée ou limitée;
b) faire l'objet d'un recours judiciaire, notamment par voie d'injonction, de certiorari, de prohibition ou de quo warranto.
|
[2] The relevant paragraphs of the Federal Court Act read as follows
|
18.1 (4) The Trial Division may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
|
18.1 (4) Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises par la Section de première instance si elle est convaincue que l'office fédéral, selon le cas :
|
|
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
|
a) a agi sans compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou refusé de l'exercer;
|
|
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
. . .
|
b) n'a pas observé un principe de justice naturelle ou d'équité procédurale ou toute autre procédure qu'il était légalement tenu de respecter;
...
|
|
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence;
|
e) a agi ou omis d'agir en raison d'une fraude ou de faux témoignages;
|
Only paragraph (a) is cited in support of this application.
[3] In our view, the Board did not exceed its jurisdiction in concluding that the applicant
bargained in bad faith by insisting to the point of deadlock that the respondent give up a part of its jurisdiction. The evidence before the Board supported that conclusion, and the previous decision of the Board dated May 3, 2000, (Société Radio-Canada, Board File: 18850) did not preclude it.
[4] The applicant also argued that the remedial action was patently unreasonable. In this respect, the Board relied on paragraph 99(1)(b.1) of the Code, which provides:
|
99. (1) Where, under . . . , section . . . 50. . . the Board may, by order, require the party to comply with or cease contravening that subsection or section and may
. . .
|
99. (1) S'il décide qu'il y a eu violation ... des ...articles 50 ... le Conseil peut, par ordonnance, enjoindre à la partie visée par la plainte de cesser de contrevenir à ces dispositions ou de s'y conformer et en outre :
...
|
|
(b.1) in respect of a contravention of the obligation to bargain collectively in good faith mentioned in paragraph 50(a), by order, require that an employer or a trade union include in or withdraw from a bargaining position specific terms or direct a binding method of resolving those terms, if the Board considers that this order is necessary to remedy the contravention or counteract its effects;
|
b.1) dans le cas de l'alinéa 50a), enjoindre, par ordonnance, à l'employeur ou au syndicat d'inclure ou de retirer des conditions spécifiques de sa position de négociation ou ordonner l'application d'une méthode exécutoire de règlement des points en litige, s'il est d'avis que ces mesures sont nécessaires pour remédier aux effets de la violation;
|
[5] It is also appropriate to reproduce subsection 99(2):
|
99. (2) For the purpose of ensuring the fulfilment of the objectives of this Part, the Board may, in respect of any contravention of or failure to comply with any provision to which subsection (1) applies and in addition to or in lieu of any other order that the Board is authorized to make under that subsection, by order, require an employer or a trade union to do or refrain from doing any thing that it is equitable to require the employer or trade union to do or refrain from doing in order to remedy or counteract any consequence of the contravention or failure to comply that is adverse to the fulfilment of those objectives.
|
99 (2) Afin d'assurer la réalisation des objectifs de la présente partie, le Conseil peut rendre, en plus ou au lieu de toute ordonnance visée au paragraphe (1), une ordonnance qu'il est juste de rendre en l'occurrence et obligeant l'employeur ou le syndicat à prendre des mesures qui sont de nature à remédier ou à parer aux effets de la violation néfastes à la réalisation de ces objectifs.
|
[6] In order to remedy the consequences of the contravention, the Board ordered the applicant
to table its final offer, after removing the provisions deemed illegal. The applicant contends that there is no rational connection between the remedy and the breach identified by the Board.
[7] We do not agree. Relying on the comments of Cory J. in Royal Oak Mines Inc.
v. Canada (Labour Relations Board) [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369, the Board attempted to place the respondent in the position it would have been in had the breach not occurred (see in particular Royal Oak, paragraph 90, cited by the Board in the conclusion of paragraph 79 of its reasons).
[8] The applicant contends that the remedy does not bring about that result. The applicant
must nonetheless establish how the remedy fashioned by the Board fails to achieve this result. In this respect, it is useful to note that the remedy does not have to be perfect. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Royal Oak, supra, at paragraph 98:
|
Clearly it can never be forgotten that free collective bargaining is a corner stone of the Canada Labour Code and of labour relations. As a general rule it should be permitted to function. Nonetheless, situations will arise when that principle can no longer be permitted to dominate a situation. Where the dispute has been bitter and lengthy; the parties intransigent and their positions intractable; when it has been found that one of the parties has not been bargaining in good faith and that this failure has frustrated the formation of a collective bargaining agreement; and where a community is suffering as a result of the strike then a Board will be justified in exercising its experience and special skill in order to fashion a remedy. This will be true even if the consequence of the remedy is to put an end to free collective bargaining. This follows in part because it is the lack of good faith bargaining by a party which is frustrating the bargaining process and in part because of the other principles and factors the Board is required to consider pursuant to the provision of the Canada Labour Code.
|
De toute évidence, il ne faut jamais oublier que les libres négociations collectives sont un principe fondamental du Code canadien du travail et des relations du travail. En règle générale, il faut laisser libre cours à ce processus. Néanmoins, il se produit des cas où l'on ne saurait permettre que ce principe soit prédominant. Si le conflit a été long et amer, les parties intransigeantes et leurs positions inflexibles, si l'on a constaté que l'une des parties n'a pas négocié de bonne foi et que ce manquement a empêché la conclusion d'une convention collective, si la grève cause des torts à la collectivité, alors le conseil peut légitimement user de son expérience et de ses compétences spécialisées pour concevoir une réparation. Cela vaut même si la réparation a pour effet de mettre fin aux libres négociations collectives.
Ce résultat découle, en partie, de la mauvaise foi de l'une des parties qui entrave le processus de la négociation et, en partie, des autres principes et facteurs dont le Conseil doit tenir compte dans l'application de la disposition du Code canadien du travail.
|
[9] The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed, with costs to the
respondent.
"Marc Noël"
Judge
Montréal, Quebec
February 25, 2003
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20030225
Docket: A-32-02
Between:
SOCIÉTÉ RADIO-CANADA
Applicant
and
ASSOCIATION DES RÉALISATEURS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-32-02
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
STYLE OF CAUSE: SOCIÉTÉ RADIO-CANADA
Applicant
and
ASSOCIATION DES RÉALISATEURS
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 25, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: NOËL J.A.
DATED: February 25, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Nicola Di Iorio FOR THE APPLICANT
Jean-Pierre Belhumeur FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Heenan Blaikie FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Stikeman Elliott FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
|
|
[ Download Adobe Reader | Printer-Friendly Page ]
|
|
