Date: 19981217
Docket: A-841-97
CORAM: STONE J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
POWER WORKERS' UNION, CUPE Local 1000
Applicant
AND:
THE SOCIETY OF ONTARIO HYDRO PROFESSIONAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES
- and -
ONTARIO HYDRO
Respondents
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, December 17, 1998
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, December 17, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 19981217
Docket: A-841-97
CORAM: STONE J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
POWER WORKERS' UNION, CUPE Local 1000
Applicant
AND:
THE SOCIETY OF ONTARIO HYDRO PROFESSIONAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES
- and -
ONTARIO HYDRO
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Thursday, December 17, 1998)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] We are of the view that this application for judicial review should be dismissed with costs.
[2] The Canada Labour Relations Board (Board) properly dismissed the applicant's preliminary objection to its jurisdiction. We are satisfied, as we believe the Board was, that the Tripartite Agreement between the Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees (Society), the Power Workers' Union, CUPE Local 1000 (PWU) and Hydro Ontario did not definitively settle the issue underlying the grievance before the arbitrator. The Agreement involved merely a temporary reallocation of 16 Trades Management Supervisors (TMS) positions represented by the Society to the status of Shift Maintenance Supervisors (SMS) while the underlying issue of the first-line supervision of mechanical maintainers would be resolved by way of Grievance before an arbitrator or, as subsequent events have shown, by way of referral to the Board.
[3] We should add that prior to a major reorganization by the employer, such supervision was partly provided by PWU-represented Union Trades Supervisors and partly by Society-represented TMS. Subsequently, both the Society and the PWU have claimed jurisdiction over this first-line supervision.
[4] We are satisfied that the issue referred to the Board was, to the knowledge of the applicant, broader than the abolition of 16 specific TMS positions and involved a determination of which of the two unions had jurisdiction over this first-line supervision. Evidence on the record clearly indicates that the applicant, prior to the hearing before the Board, agreed that the issue of first-line supervision was of general importance and appropriately referred to the Board for determination (see the written submissions of the applicant to the Board in Application Record, vol. III, p. 402). In its submissions to the Board, the Society also confirmed prior to the hearing the agreement between the parties "that the Board should provide a definitive determination of the central issue in this case, that is, where the appropriate line of demarcation should be drawn between the Society's professional and supervisory unit and the unit of employees represented by the PWU" (id., at p. 428).
[5] We are also satisfied that, in determining the question, the Board took an appropriate approach to solving the conflicting jurisdictional issue between the two unions. Its finding that the work of the first-line supervisors is supervisory by the nature of its core functions and responsibilities, that these primary or essential functions are not those of a "working supervisor" falling within the PWU's jurisdiction and, therefore, that this kind of supervisory work is covered by the Society's bargaining certificate relates to a subject matter that falls squarely within the domain of its expertise. It is entitled to curial deference in view of the strong privative clause found in section 22 of the Code (see Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board), (1996) 133 D.L.R. (4th) 129, at pp. 143-144 (S.C.C.)). We have not been provided with any valid justification for interfering with that finding.
[6] Finally, we see no merit in the applicant's argument that it has been the victim of a breach of natural justice. The breach is premised on the contention that the applicant was never informed of the Board's intention to adjudicate on the dispute between the two unions as to the jurisdiction over the first-line supervision. The evidence on the record does not support that contention.
[7] For these reasons, the application will be dismissed with costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-841-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: POWER WORKERS' UNION, |
CUPE LOCAL 1000
| Applicant |
- and -
THE SOCIETY OF ONTARIO HYDRO
PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
EMPLOYEES
- and -
ONTARIO HYDRO
| Respondents |
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario
on Thursday, December 17, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Chris G. Paliare
Mr. Andrew K. Lokan
| For the Applicant |
Mr. Paul Cavalluzzo
For the Respondents
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Gowling, Strathy & Henderson |
Barristers & Solicitors
Commerce Court West
Suite 4900, Commerce
Toronto, Ontario
M5L 1J3
| For the Applicant |
Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton
McIntyre & Cornish
Barristers and Solicitors
43 Madison Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 2S2
Ontario Hydro
General Counsel
Law Department
700 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1X6
For the Respondents
| FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL |
| Date: 19981217 |
| Docket: A-841-97 |
| BETWEEN: |
| POWER WORKERS' UNION, |
| CUPE LOCAL 1000 |
| Applicant |
| - and - |
| THE SOCIETY OF ONTARIO HYDRO |
| PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE |
| EMPLOYEES |
| - and - |
| ONTARIO HYDRO |
| Respondents |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT |
| OF THE COURT |