LABOUR RELATIONS |
Telus Advanced Communications v. Telecommu-nications Workers Union
A-164-01
2002 FCA 310, Desjardins, J.A.
9/9/02
27 pp.
Judicial review of Canada Industrial Relations Board (Board) decision determining bargaining unit, resulting from merger of telecommunications companies, had no geographical limitation, not restricted to employees in B.C. and Alberta, could incorporate all of applicant's Canadian operations--Companies' merger bringing together five bargaining units with different unions--Applicant (Telus) bringing application for declaration that merged corporations single employer, redefinition of bargaining units--Board commencing review but suspending proceedings to allow for mediation--Telus meanwhile expanding into Eastern Canada, respondent union (TWU) applying for order extending collective agreement and certification to employees outside Alberta and B.C.--Parties agreeing to one bargaining unit covering employees in Alberta and B.C., approved by Board --Parties subsequently disagreeing about whether unit limited geographically, asked Board for interpretation--Board determining not bound by agreement of parties, but responsible under Canada Labour Code, ss. 18.1, 27 to determine appropriate bargaining unit--Nothing in agreement contemplating expanded geographical area--Because of overriding responsibility of Code, s. 27 in determining bargaining unit, Board concluding bargaining unit description should not contain geographical restriction but should incor-porate potentially all Telus's Canadian operations-- Applicants submitting Board's jurisdiction exhausted after issuing order confirming agreement--Board cannot review except under s. 18.1(3)--Applicants further submitting Board patently unreasonable in finding no geographical limitation in agreement--Applicants arguing since language in agreement clear, unambiguous, matter of ordinary contract law, therefore standard of correctness applicable, matter outside Board's specialized expertise--Jurisdiction only one factor to be considered in pragmatic, functional analysis: U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 982, at paragraph 28--Code, s. 18.1 new, subject to fresh study of applicable standard of review--Factors to determine Parliament's intent as to jurisdiction of administrative tribunal: privative clause, expertise of tribunal; purpose of legislation; nature of problem--Strongly worded privative clause herein indicating high level of deference-- Extensive expertise of Board in defining bargaining units indicating high level of deference--Language of s. 18.1 indicating Parliament intended to provide Board with jurisdiction to consider appropriateness of definition of bargaining unit, including regarding geographical scope, worthy of greater level of defer-ence--Nature of problem more factual than legal, therefore higher level of deference-- Standard of review patent unreasonableness--Board proceeded properly with review of bargaining unit triggered by Telus's application, allowed time for parties to agree-- Within Board's jurisdiction to interpret agreement--Words "one bargaining unit covering employees in Alberta and B.C." ambiguous and requiring interpretation--Board only one which would properly determine meaning; did not act in patently unreasonable manner--Interpretation of agree-ment matter of labour law, not contract law, within expertise of Board, therefore entitled to high deference--Board not functus after confirming agreement--Not limited to one order only; jurisdiction to settle issues if parties cannot agree and when Board considers appropriate--Order not constituting excess of jurisdiction, not made in patently unreasonable manner-- Application dismissed--Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, ss. 18.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1998, c. 26, s. 7), 27.