Date: 19980616
Docket: A-30-98
CORAM: STONE J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
ROBERTSON J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE CITY OF SASKATOON
Applicant
(Respondent)
- and -
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Respondent
(Applicant)
- and -
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS', LOCAL NO. 80
Respondent
(Intervenor)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on Tuesday, June 16, 1998)
BY THE COURT:
[1] This is an application to set aside a unanimous decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board of December 23, 1997, which found that the Airport Division of the appellant's fire department forms a vital and essential part of the John G. Diefenbaker Airport at Saskatoon and, accordingly, that the labour relations of employees in the Airport Division fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code (the "Code"). By that same decision the Board determined that the Airport Division was a federal "business" to which section 47 of the Code applied and, accordingly, that the respondent be certified as bargaining agent for a unit of employees consisting of "all firefighters providing emergency response services at the J.G. Diefenbaker Airport, save and except the Fire Chief".
[2] The question being one of constitutional interpretation required that the Board answer it correctly: Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board) (1998), 156 D.L.R. (4th) 456 (S.C.C.), per Iacobucci and Major JJ., at pages 478-79.
[3] It is common ground that the question of whether the Airport Division is essential and integral to a core federal undertaking is to be considered in accordance with the second test enunciated by Dickson C.J. in United Transportation Union v. Central Western Railway Corp., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1112, at page 1139:
First, one must begin with the operation which is at the core of the federal undertaking. Then the courts look at the particular subsidiary operation engaged in by the employees in question. The court must then arrive at a judgment as to the relationship of that operation to the core federal undertaking, the necessary relationship being variously described as "vital", "essential" or "integral".
That guidance, of course, must be viewed in the light of Supreme Court's decisions, particularly those of Northern Telecom Limited v. Communications Workers of Canada et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115 and Northern Telecom Canada Limited et al. v. Communications Workers of Canada, et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 733.
[4] It is common ground that the airport itself is the core federal undertaking as defined in paragraph 2(e) of the Code, viz "aerodromes, airports or a line of air transportation...". What remained to be determined by the Board with respect to the first issue was whether the second test of Central Western, supra, was satisfied.
[5] In our view, it has not been shown that the Board erred in drawing the inferences it drew from its detailed findings of fact that the Airport Division is an essential and integral part of the John G. Diefenbaker Airport. Nor, in our view, did it err in determining that section 47 of the Code applied.
[6] The section 28 application will therefore be dismissed with costs.
"A.J. STONE"
J.A
"GILES LÉTOURNEAU"
J.A
"J.T. ROBERTSON"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-30-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: The City of Saskatoon v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 16, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (Stone, Létourneau, Robertson, JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Stone, J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Theresa Dust, Q. C. for the Applicant Ms. Patricia Warwick
Mr. Andrew Raven
Ms. Jackie Deaguayo for the Respondent (PSAC)
No one for the International Association of Firefighters' Local No. 80
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
City Solicitor
City of Saskatoon for the Applicant Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Raven, Allen, Cameron & Ballantyne
Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent (PSAC)
Woloshyn Mattison
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan for the International Association of Firefighters Local No. 80