CFER‑TV Rimouski v. Syndicat des employé(e)s de TVA

CFER‑TV Rimouski v. Syndicat des employé(e)s de TVA Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2023-02-15 Neutral citation 2023 FCA 35 File numbers A-331-21 Decision Content Date: 20230215 Docket: A-331-21 Citation: 2023 FCA 35 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] CORAM: GAUTHIER J.A. LOCKE J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. BETWEEN: CFER‑TV RIMOUSKI, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CJPM‑TV CHICOUTIMI, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CHLT‑TV SHERBROOKE, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CHEM‑TV TROIS‑RIVIÈRES, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CFCM‑TV, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; TVA GROUP INC. Applicants and SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉ(E)S DE TVA, LOCAL 687, CUPE Respondent and SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉS DE CJPM‑TV (CSN) Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on February 15, 2023. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 15, 2023. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROUSSEL J.A. Date: 20230215 Docket: A-331-21 Citation: 2023 FCA 35 CORAM: GAUTHIER J.A. LOCKE J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. BETWEEN: CFER‑TV RIMOUSKI, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CJPM‑TV CHICOUTIMI, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CHLT‑TV SHERBROOKE, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CHEM‑TV TROIS‑RIVIÈRES, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CFCM‑TV, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; TVA GROUP INC. Applicants and SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉ(E)S DE TVA, LOCAL 687, CUPE Respondent and SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉS DE CJPM‑TV (CSN) Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 15, 2023.) ROUSSEL J.A. [1] This is an application for judicial review of a Canada Industrial Relations Board decision rendered on October 27, 2021 (2021 CIRB 993) whereby the Board allowed the application for review made by the Syndicat des employé(e)s de TVA, Local 687 (CUPE) pursuant to section 18.1 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2. [2] TVA Group owns and operates six television stations: CFTM‑TV Montréal, CFCM‑TV Québec, CHLT‑TV Sherbrooke, CHEM‑TV Trois‑Rivières, CFER‑TV Rimouski and CJPM‑TV Chicoutimi. CUPE is the certified bargaining agent for the unionized employees of the Montréal, Québec, Sherbrooke, Trois‑Rivières and Rimouski stations. The CJPM‑TV Chicoutimi station is represented by CSN. [3] Considering the bargaining units to be no longer appropriate for bargaining, CUPE applied for a review of the structure of TVA Group’s bargaining units under section 18.1 of the Code and proposed that a single unit be declared appropriate for collective bargaining. TVA Group and CSN opposed the application. [4] After more than 40 hearing days, during which over 50 witnesses were heard and more than 500 exhibits were filed, the Board held that the bargaining units were no longer appropriate for collective bargaining pursuant to subsection 18.1(1) of the Code. The Board began by accepting that the technological changes and centralization of activities in Montréal had significantly changed the way work was done at the regional stations and that these changes had led to job cuts and a reduction in the number of unionized employees. The Board then found that TVA Group’s demands during collective bargaining repeated from one station to the next, which meant that the smaller regional units were forced to accept whatever benefits or disadvantages were negotiated by the previous units. Pursuant to subsection 18.1(2) of the Code, the Board gave the parties 90 days to attempt to come to an agreement with respect to the determination of the bargaining structure. [5] The applicants allege that the Board did not adequately explain how the technological changes and centralization of activities in Montréal render the bargaining units inappropriate for collective bargaining. They contend that the Board gave undue weight to the gains made by TVA Group in bargaining, in addition to adopting erroneous reasoning with respect to the “QMI clause”. They add that the Board should have addressed in its analysis their argument that past settlements of jurisdiction grievances show that labour relations were working well. Lastly, they argue that the Board should have stated how it dealt with the evidence relating to the five sales representative units. [6] The only issue in this case is whether the Board’s decision is reasonable under the framework set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. [7] Contrary to the applicants’ assertion, the Board explained in its decision how the technological changes affected labour relations. It considered, among other things, the fact that reporters from the regional stations were put to work at the TVA network and LCN (at paras. 195–97), reduction of staffing levels at TVA Group’s various stations (at paras. 200–01), abolition of the general manager positions at the Trois‑Rivières, Sherbrooke and Saguenay regional stations (at para. 202), centralization of labour relations for all regional stations at the Montréal station (at paras. 203–04) and the fact that the director of labour relations at the Montréal station negotiates the renewal of collective agreements on behalf of the employer (at para. 205). [8] We are of the view that a holistic and contextual reading of the Board’s reasons on this point provides ample insight into the basis on which its decision was made. Accepting the applicants’ position would impose on the Board a degree of perfection that exceeds the principles established in Vavilov. The Board was not required to make an explicit finding on each argument or piece of evidence presented by the applicants (Vavilov at paras. 91, 102–03, 128). What matters is the logic and coherence of the reasoning behind its bottom-line conclusion. In our view, this case contains no flaw that would warrant our intervention. [9] We cannot agree with the applicants’ argument regarding the gains made by CUPE. The Board clearly stated that it would neither weigh the pros and cons of the negotiations nor determine who won and who lost. Instead, it set out the evidence presented by the parties with respect to collective agreement renewals and found that the bargaining units were no longer appropriate for collective bargaining based on their existing structure. It explained that the multiplication of bargaining units, with varying numbers of employees in each unit, and the multiplication of collective agreements, with different expiry dates, created a power imbalance between the employer and CUPE, which represents five of the six bargaining units. In addition, the repetition of the employer’s demands from one unit to the next and its refusal to have a coordinated bargaining table meant that the smaller units of the regional stations would always be forced to accept the benefits or disadvantages negotiated by the previous units. [10] With respect to the QMI clause, the issue for the Board was not the interpretation of the clause but, rather, how it was incorporated into each of the collective agreements. [11] As for the other two arguments raised by the applicants, the Board stated from the outset in its decision that it would not go over all of the testimony and all of the parties’ written arguments in detail. It is clear that it considered the argument concerning jurisdiction grievances but did not deem it appropriate to discuss it in its analysis. With respect to the evidence relating to the sales representative units, the Board stated that these units had been removed from the application under subsection 18.1(1) of the Code during the proceeding (five revocation orders). Counsel for the applicants also acknowledged during the hearing that the evidence relating to the sales representative units was not really relevant to the decision to be rendered by the Board. In our view, there is no error rendering the decision as a whole unreasonable. [12] Lastly, we find that, in their memorandum, the applicants misstated the burden of proof required by subsection 18.1(1) of the Code in claiming that it is necessary to show that the units are untenable or that the existing unit structure has become too cumbersome. The Board could reasonably rely on its past jurisprudence, which states that, even though valid and serious reasons must be demonstrated in an application under subsection 18.1(1) of the Code, this burden is not insurmountable, and it is not necessary to wait for serious or intolerable problems to arise to file an application. The Board had to take a broad and contextual view, and it did so in this case (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2003 CIRB 218 (February 28, 2003) at paras. 113–14; reconsideration decision 2003 CIRB 253 (November 10, 2003) at para. 74; Société Radio‑Canada, 2014 CIRB 741 (September 19, 2014) at paras. 122–24). [13] Despite the able submissions of counsel for the applicants, we are of the view that the applicants’ arguments essentially amount to a disagreement with the Board’s findings of fact, the evidence that it accepted and the weight that it assigned it. However, this Court’s role in an application for judicial review is not to reassess the evidence (Vavilov at para. 125). Assessing the evidence was the Board’s role and, as mentioned, the Board was not required to refer in its decision to each and every piece of evidence before it, but is presumed to have considered all the evidence (Simpson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 82 at para. 10). [14] In conclusion, the burden was on the applicants to show that the Board’s decision was unreasonable (Vavilov at para. 100). We are of the view that they did not meet their burden. [15] The application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs. “Sylvie E. Roussel” J.A. Certified true translation Margarita Gorbounova, Senior Jurilinguist FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-331-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: CFER‑TV RIMOUSKI, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CJPM‑TV CHICOUTIMI, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CHLT‑TV SHERBROOKE, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CHEM‑TV TROIS‑RIVIÈRES, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; CFCM‑TV, A DIVISION OF TVA GROUP INC.; TVA GROUP INC. v. SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉ(E)S DE TVA, LOCAL 687, CUPE AND SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉS DE CJPM‑TV (CSN) PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: February 15, 2023 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: GAUTHIER J.A. LOCKE J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: ROUSSEL J.A. APPEARANCES: Stéphanie Fillion Déborah Furtado For the applicants Isabelle Leblanc For the respondent SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉ(E)S DE TVA, LOCAL 687, CUPE Benoît Laurin For the respondent SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉS DE CJPM‑TV (CSN) SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Fasken Martineau Du Moulin, LLP For the applicants Roy Bélanger Avocats For the respondent SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉ(E)S DE TVA, LOCAL 687, CUPE Laroche Martin CSN Legal Service For the respondent SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉS DE CJPM‑TV (CSN)