Champagne v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW/AIMTA - District 140)

Champagne v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW/AIMTA - District 140) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2015-11-24 Neutral citation 2015 FCA 264 File numbers A-148-15 Decision Content Date: 20151124 Docket: A-148-15 Citation: 2015 FCA 264 CORAM: GAUTHIER J.A. BOIVIN J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. BETWEEN: RICHARD CHAMPAGNE Applicant and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS (IAMAW/AIMTA - DISTRICT 140) Respondent and AIR CANADA AND ANTONIO DE BENEDETTO Third party Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on November 24, 2015. Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, on November 24, 2015. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: GAUTHIER J.A. Date: 20151124 Docket: A-148-15 Citation: 2015 FCA 264 CORAM: GAUTHIER J.A. BOIVIN J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. BETWEEN: RICHARD CHAMPAGNE Applicant and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS (IAMAW/AIMTA - DISTRICT 140) Respondent and AIR CANADA AND ANTONIO DE BENEDETTO Third party REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 24, 2015.) GAUTHIER J.A. [1] In his application for judicial review, Mr. Richard Champagne challenged the decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board) dismissing his complaint under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code (R.S.C. (1985), c. L-2) (the Code). [2] As this Court previously decided in Dumont v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Montréal Local, 2011 FCA 185 at paragraphs 33-34, [2011] F.C.A. No. 796, the standard of review applicable to matters involving the Board’s interpretation of the provisions of the Code is that of reasonableness. That is the same standard that applies to the Board’s rulings regarding the application of section 37 of the Code to the particular circumstances raised in a complaint, including a Board decision dealing with, as in this case, the prima facie evaluation of such a complaint (Blanchet v. International Assoc. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 712, 2009 FCA 103 at paragraph 6, [2009] F.C.A. no. 399). [3] Nevertheless, the Applicant argues that the applicable standard in this case is that of correctness because, in his view, the Board simply refused to exercise its jurisdiction. We do not agree. [4] In its decision, the Board considered the nature of the complaints before it, as well as the allegations therein. According to the Board, the only real criticism made by the Applicant to the union is having unreasonably and trivially interpreted an arbitral award issued at the request of the union and the employer as part of an agreement undertaken by the Board in its order no. 9996-U (amended). [5] After reiterating that its role in the context of a complaint under section 37 of the Code is not to review the validity of a union’s interpretation of a collective agreement or arbitral award, the Board indicated that, in this case, the union had indeed justified and explained its interpretation to the Applicant (and the other complainants). It was satisfied that no facts related to the process leading to the contested decision made it possible to find that the union had acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith within the meaning of section 37 of the Code. On that basis, the Board ruled that the complaint should be dismissed. [6] The Applicant has not persuaded us that the Board’s interpretation regarding its role in the context of a complaint under section 37 of the Code was unreasonable (in this regard, see Bomongo v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, 2010 FCA 126 at paragraphs 11 and 18, [2010] F.C.J. No. 635). In his brief and before us, the Applicant essentially just reiterated his disagreement with the interpretation of the union’s arbitral award, which he considers trivial and unreasonable. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Board’s finding is one potential and acceptable outcome, considering the facts and the law. [7] The application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs set at a lump sum of $3,000 (taxes and expenses included). “Johanne Gauthier” J.A. Certified true translation François Brunet, Revisor FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: A-148-15 STYLE OF CAUSE: RICHARD CHAMPAGNE v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS (IAMAW/AIMTA – DISTRICT 140) AND AIR CANADA AND ANTONIO DE BENEDETTO PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 24, 2015 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: GAUTHIER J.A. BOIVIN J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: GAUTHIER J.A. APPEARANCES: Jimmy Troeung For The Applicant Stephen J. Moreau For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: LAROUCHE & ASSOCIÉS Montréal, Quebec For The Applicant CAVALLUZZO SHILTON MCINTYRE CORNISH LLP Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent