BETWEEN:
(Plaintiff)
and
(Defendant)
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
(Defendant)
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on March 26, 2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 26, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-508-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 123
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROBERT LAVIGNE
Appellant
(Plaintiff)
and
MR. ROBERT PEPIN
Respondent
(Defendant)
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
(Defendant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 26, 2007)
[1] This is an appeal against a decision of de Montigny J. of the Federal Court granting the respondent’s motion to strike the appellant’s statement of claim.
[2] The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal relating to his right to obtain a copy of the insurance policy covering him, the translation of his medical file from French to English, the legal status of his employer’s policy regarding harassment in the workplace, a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of his union and the legal status of Mr. Pepin who was made a defendant in the proceedings in the Federal Court. We did not see the need to hear from counsel for the respondent on these issues as we saw no error in the judge’s decision that warranted our intervention.
[3] However, we called upon the respondent to address the appellant’s argument relating to subsection 57(1) of the Canada Labour Code R.S., 1985, c. L-2 (Code) and sections 56.08 and 56.09 of the Agreement between Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (Collective Agreement).
[4] These provisions and section 56.07 read:
|
57.(1) Every collective agreement shall contain a provision for final settlement without stoppage of work, by arbitration or otherwise, of all differences between the parties to or employees bound by the collective agreement, concerning its interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention.
(2) Where any difference arises between parties to a collective agreement that does not contain a provision for final settlement of the difference as required by subsection (1), the difference shall, notwithstanding any provision of the collective agreement, be submitted by the parties for final settlement (a) to an arbitrator selected by the parties; or (b) where the parties are unable to agree on the selection of an arbitrator and either party makes a written request to the Minister to appoint an arbitrator, to an arbitrator appointed by the Minister after such inquiry, if any, as the Minister considers necessary. (my emphasis)
|
57.(1) Est obligatoire dans la convention collective la présence d’une clause prévoyant le mode – par arbitrage ou toute autre voie – de règlement définitif, sans arrêt de travail, des désaccords qui pourraient survenir entre les parties ou les employés qu’elle régit, quant à son interprétation, son application ou sa prétendue violation.
(2) En l’absence de cette clause, tout désaccord entre les parties à la convention collective est, malgré toute disposition de la convention collective, obligatoirement soumis par elles, pour règlement définitif : a) soit à un arbitre de leur choix; b) soit, en cas d’impossibilité d’entente sur ce choix et sur demande écrite de nomination présentée par l’une ou l’autre partie au ministre, à l’arbitre que désigne celui-ci, après enquête, s’il le juge nécessaire. (Je souligne) |
|
56.07 Decision After the investigation is completed, the Corporation shall communicate the conclusions reached to the employee and to the Union representative where the employee has so requested. Before a decision is taken as to the proper measures to be adopted in order to remedy the situation, the Corporation will seek input from the Union representative where such measures directly affect employees in the bargaining unit. Notwithstanding clause 45.02, a transfer within the same classification may be imposed on an employee as a disciplinary measure for harassment related to any of the grounds stipulated in 56.01. Upon written request by the complainant and following consultation and agreement, the Corporation may grant the complainant the right to be assigned to another assignment or position on a temporary basis.
|
56.07 Décision Lorsque l’entente est terminée, la Société fait part à l’employée ou à l’employé et, le cas échéant, à la représentante ou au représentant syndical de ses conclusions. Avant de prendre une décision quant aux mesures qu’il convient de prendre afin de remédier à la situation, la Société demande à la représentante ou au représentant syndical ses commentaires si les mesures envisagées ont des répercussions directes sur des employées et employés de l’unité de négociation. Malgré la clause 45.02, la mutation d’une employée ou d’un employé à l’intérieur de sa classe d’emplois peut être utilisée comme mesure disciplinaire en cas de harcèlement relié à l’un des motifs énumérés à la clause 56.01. Sur demande écrite de la plaignante ou du plaignant, et à l’issue d’une consultation et d’une entente, la Société peut accorder à la plaignante ou au plaignant le droit de se faire muter temporairement à une autre affectation ou un autre poste.
|
|
56.08 Compensation A complaint filed pursuant to this article shall not be construed as restricting in any way the right of an employee who has been subjected to harassment to claim and obtain compensation at common law or under any applicable legislation.
56.09 Right to Grieve Nothing in the above provision shall be construed as restricting or limiting the right of an employee or the right of the Union to use the grievance and arbitration procedure in cases of harassment. |
56.08 Indemnité Une plainte déposée en vertu du présent article ne restreint en aucune façon le droit d’une employée ou d’un employé qui a fait l’objet de harcèlement de réclamer et d’obtenir une indemnité en vertu du droit commun ou de toute législation applicable.
56.09 Le droit au grief Rien aux présentes ne restreint le droit d’une employée, d’un employé ou du Syndicat d’avoir recours à la procédure de règlement des griefs et d’arbitrage en matière de harcèlement. |
[5] We are satisfied, as the judge of the Federal Court was, that the word “otherwise” found in subsection 57(1) of the Code refers to other modes of settling a grievance envisaged by the Code. In this respect, the French text of subsection 57(1) is more explicit and telling than the English text. The words “ou tout autre voie – de règlement definitif” is indicative of the legislator’s intent to privilege a settlement within the terms and procedures established by the Code over a resort to the courts.
[6] In Di Genova v. Air Canada and La Great-West Compagnie d’assurance-vie, C.A.M., no. 500-09-005638-978, March 6, 1998, the Quebec Court of Appeal, at page 8, says this about the term “otherwise” in subsection 57(1):
L’utilisation des termes «mode – par arbitrage ou toute autre voie – de règlement définitif» constitue une indication que le législateur réfère aux divers modes de règlement définitif prévus par le Code du travail. On ne saurait conclure, comme le veut bien l’appelant, que l’expression «ou toute autre voie» crée une réserve de recours devant les tribunaux de droit commun. À notre avis, l’utilisation du terme «mode de règlement définitif» exclut, compte tenu de l’esprit du droit du travail, le recours aux tribunaux de droit commun. Ajoutons que le législateur a prévu à l’article 57(2) du Code canadien du travail qu’en cas d’absence de la clause prévue à l’article 57(1), les parties doivent obligatoirement soumettre leur différend à un arbitre. Il en est de même au cours de la période se situant entre l’expiration d’une convention collective et l’adoption d’une nouvelle (article 67(4) du Code canadien du travail).
(my emphasis)
[7] Footnote 3 of this excerpt from the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision refers to the case of Rail Canada Traffic Controllers v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al. (Suit No. 3398/82), 20 Man.R.(2d) 429 (Man.Q.B.).
[8] We agree with this interpretation of the provision by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
[9] Finally, we are satisfied that the judge made no error in interpreting sections 56.08 and 56.09 of the Collective Agreement. Section 56 sets up a procedure granting protection against harassment in the workplace. It also provides some remedies in section 56.07. In our view, section 56.08 merely confirms for greater certainty that a victim retains the right under the scheme to obtain compensation under the common law.
[10] Again, the French text of section 56.09, by referring to the whole scheme put in place by section 56 rather than merely the provision above, as does the English text, is clearer than the English text and supports the conclusion that the judge has come to and that we endorse.
[11] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Gilles Létourneau”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-508-06
(APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006, DOCKET NO. T-831-06)
STYLE OF CAUSE: ROBERT LAVIGNE v.
MR. ROBERT PEPIN ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 26, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS, LÉTOURNEAU, NOËL JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
(on his own behalf) |
FOR THE APPELLANT(PLAINTIFF)
|
|
Azim Hussain |
FOR THE RESPONDENT(DEFENDANTS) |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Montréal, Quebec |
FOR THE RESPONDENT(DEFENDANTS) |