Brewer v. Halifax Longshoremen's Assn.

Brewer v. Halifax Longshoremen's Assn. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-01-30 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 42 File numbers A-159-00 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20020130 Docket: A-159-00 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 42 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: DWAYNE A. BREWER Applicant and HALIFAX LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION LOCAL 269 OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION Respondent Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Wednesday, January 30, 2002. Judgment delivered from the bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Wednesday, January 30, 2002. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A. Date: 20020130 Docket: A-159-00 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 42 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: DWAYNE A. BREWER Applicant and HALIFAX LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION LOCAL 269 OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Wednesday, January 30, 2002) DESJARDINS J.A. [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the "Board") ([2000] CIRB Decision No. 54), which dismissed the applicant's complaint that the respondent had breached its duty of fair referral under section 69 of the Canada Labour Code (the "Code"), R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, when it selected, in cooperation with the Halifax Employers Association (the "HEA"), a list of 104 candidates, from 798 applicants, to be placed on a reserve bullpen list of non-union workers known as the "bullpen". These are casual workers who attend at the hiring hall in the hope of obtaining work in the event that there is still work available after all union and card board members have already been dispatched. [2] The applicable standard of judicial review must first be addressed considering the broad privative clause of section 22 of the Code. It is well established that the standard of patent unreasonableness applies to the interpretation of provisions falling within the core jurisdiction of the Board, but that it does not apply if the issue falls outside that jurisdiction. In such case, a standard of correctness will apply (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board), [1995]1 S.C.R. 157 at 179-80). [3] The complaint was heard under the transitional provisions of the Canada Labour Code (an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Union Returns Act, S.C. 1998, c. 26) which state in part: 86. The following definitions apply in this section and sections 87 to 94. [...] "former Board" "ancien Conseil" "former Board" means the Canada Labour Relations Board continued by section 9 of the former Act. "new Board" "nouveau Conseil" "new Board" means the Canadian Industrial Relations Board established by section 9 of the new Act. 86. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent au présent article et aux articles 87 à 94. [...] "ancien Conseil" "former Board" "ancien Conseil" le Conseil canadien des relations du travail maintenu par l'article 9 de l'ancienne loi. "nouveau Conseil "new Board" "nouveau Conseil" le Conseil canadien des relations industrielles constitué par l'article 9 de la nouvelle loi. 87. The members of the former Board cease to hold office on the commencement day. 87. Le mandat des membres de l'ancien Conseil prend fin à la date de référence. 88(1) Subject to subsection (2), any proceeding that the former Board was seized of on the day immediately preceding the commencement day shall be transferred to and disposed of by the new Board in accordance with the new Act. 88(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les affaires dont l'ancien Conseil était saisi la veille de la date de référence se poursuivent devant le nouveau Conseil qui en dispose selon la nouvelle loi. 88(2) Any member of the former Board may, at the request of the Chairperson, continue to hear, consider or decide any matter what was before the member before the commencement day and in respect of which there was any proceeding in which they participated as a member. 88(2) Un membre de l'ancien Conseil peut, à la demande du président, continuer l'audition de toute affaire qui lui a été soumise avant la date de référence et a déjà fait l'objet d'une procédure à laquelle il a participé en sa qualité de membre. 88(3) Where a member of a panel refuses to continue to hear, consider or decide any matter referred to in subsection (1), the Chairperson of the panel may continue to hear, consider or decide the matter or the Chairperson may remove that matter from the panel and hear, consider or decide that matter or assign a Vice-Chairperson or a panel of the new Board to do so on any terms and conditions that the Chairperson may specify for the protection and preservation of the rights and interests of the parties. 88(3) En cas de refus d'un membre d'une formation de continuer l'audition d'une affaire visée au paragraphe (1), le président de la formation peut la continuer seul ou le président peut en dessaisir la formation et s'en charger lui-même ou la confier à un vice-président ou à une formation du nouveau Conseil selon les modalités et aux conditions qu'il fixe dans l'intérêt des parties. 88(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), the members of the former Board shall exercise the powers of the new Board. 88(4) Pour l'application du paragraphe (2), les membres de l'ancien Conseil jouissent des pouvoirs du nouveau Conseil. 88(5) The Chairperson of the new Board has supervision over and direction of the work of members of the former Board who exercise powers under subsection (4). 88(5) Dans l'exercice des pouvoirs mentionnés au paragraphe (4), les membres agissent sous l'autorité du président du nouveau Conseil. 89(1) Each member of the former Board who continues to hear, consider or decide any matter under subsection 88(2), shall be paid any fees for that member's services that may be fixed by the Governor in Council. 89(1) Les membres de l'ancien Conseil reçoivent, pour l'audition des affaires visées au paragraphe 88(2), les honoraires que peut fixer le gouverneur en conseil. 89(2) Each member of the former Board who exercises powers under subsection 88(4) is entitled to be paid reasonable travel and living expenses incurred by the member in the course of the member's duties under this Act while absent from the member's ordinary place of residence. 89(2) Les membres de l'ancien Conseil sont indemnisés des frais de déplacement et de séjour entraînés par l'accomplissement de leurs fonctions au titre du paragraphe 88(4) hors de leur lieu habituel de résidence. 90. The Chairperson may withdraw from the members of the former Board any matter referred to in subsection 88(2) that is not disposed of within one year after the commencement day and determine the matter or assign it to a Vice-Chairperson or a panel of the new Board on such terms and conditions as the Chairperson may specify for the protection and preservation of the rights and interests of the parties. 90. Le président peut dessaisir les membres de l'ancien Conseil de toute affaire visée au paragraphe 88(2) qui n'est pas réglée dans l'année qui suit la date de référence et se charger lui-même de son audition ou la confier à un vice-président ou à une formation du nouveau conseil selon les modalités et aux conditions qu'il fixe dans l'intérêt des parties. 91. Any decision, including any order, determination or declaration, made by the former Board is deemed to have been made by the new Board. 91. Les décisions - notamment les ordonnances, déterminations ou déclarations - rendues par l'ancien Conseil sont réputées l'avoir été par le nouveau Conseil. [4] he first issue raised by the applicant arises from the fact that the former Board started hearing the complaint in November 1998. On January 1, 1999, the Canada Labour Relations Board was replaced, through amendments to the Canada Labour Code, by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The new Board, relying on the transcripts of the earlier hearings, continued the hearings and issued the decision which is now under review. [5] The applicant submits, firstly, that the new Board was without jurisdiction to hear the matter, both on account of the common law principle that he who hears must decide, and also on account of the fact that, under the transitional provisions of the Canada Labour Code, the Chairperson was obliged to request the former Board members to sit, and that he did not do so. [6] This is certainly not our interpretation of the transitional provisions which, contrary to the applicant's submission, supercede the common law. [7] Subsection 88(1) states that, subject to subsection (2), "any proceeding that the former Board was seized of on the day immediately preceding the commencement day shall be transferred to and disposed of by the new Board in accordance with the new Act" (our emphasis). [8] What subsection 2 does is allow the Chairperson to request a former Board member to continue to deal with a matter that was before a panel prior to January 1, 1999. The Chairperson is, however, under no obligation to make such a request and may choose not to, since subsection (2) is permissive only. If he makes no such request, the matter proceeds according to subsection 88(1). [9] The applicant submits, as a second proposition, that while the Board stated that it was concerned with both the test of "fairness" and that of "discrimination" under section 69 of the Canada Labour Code, yet the Board only dealt with discrimination and not with fairness in its assessment of the applicant's complaint. [10] We are satisfied, from a review of the Board's decision, that it addressed both the issues of discrimination and fairness. [11] A further argument presented by the applicant is that the Board, after having identified difficulties in the selection methodology, nevertheless, wrongly concluded that the process was fair. [12] While the Board criticized, in no uncertain terms, the methodology, or lack thereof, in the making of the reserve bullpen list, we are unable, on a test of patent unreasonableness, to say that its treatment of the complaint would warrant our intervention. [13] This application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed with costs. "Alice Desjardins" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-159-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: Dwayne D. Brewer v. Halifax Longshoremen's Assoc., Local 269 PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia DATE OF HEARING: January 30, 2002 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Desjardins, Rothstein, Noël JJ.A. RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Desjardins J.A. DATED: January 30, 2002 APPEARANCES: Mr. Michael J. O'Hara FOR THE APPLICANT Mr. Ronald Pink FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Michael J. O'Hara FOR THE APPLICANT Dartmouth, Nova Scotia Pink Breen Larkin FOR THE RESPONDENT Halifax, Nova Scotia