Boyko et al. v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al., 2011 MBQB 25

• Judge: Saull, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 28, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2011 MBQB 25;(2011), 263 Man.R.(2d) 40 (QB)

Boyko v. CPR (2011), 263 Man.R.(2d) 40 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.045

David Wayne Boyko and Jeff MacMaster Smith and William Nelson Worthington and Allan Leite (plaintiffs) v. Canadian Pacific Railway and Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (defendants)

(CI 08-01-57807; 2011 MBQB 25)

Indexed As: Boyko et al. v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Saull, J.

January 28, 2011.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) was the trade union that was the certified bargaining agent for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' action alleged that CPR and TCRC (the defendants) had acted in a collusive manner in the negotiation and renewal of the collective agreement that became effective in January 2003. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that TCRC acted negligently in that negotiation and renewal. The defendants moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion.

Courts - Topic 7781

Provincial courts - Manitoba - Court of Queen's Bench - General - [See both Labour Law - Topic 435 ].

Labour Law - Topic 435

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Boards - Jurisdiction - Canada Industrial Relations Board - The plaintiffs were employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) - The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) was the trade union that was the certified bargaining agent for the plaintiffs - The plaintiffs' action alleged, inter alia, that CPR and TCRC (the defendants) had acted in a collusive manner in the negotiation and renewal of the collective agreement that became effective in January 2003 - The defendants moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion - The true focus of the statement of claim was on the collective bargaining process, itself - The animating assertion in the claim and the pith of the dispute related to the collective bargaining process, rather than constituting a freestanding assertion of collusion or negligence - The allegations involved the duty of fair representation during the collective bargaining process and, therefore, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIRB - Further, the court rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the Court of Queen's Bench was the only body having jurisdiction to grant rectification of a contract - Even if the plaintiffs' request for a declaration and damages could be viewed as being similar to a request for rectification, the powers of the CIRB were extremely broad and included the power to reopen negotiations where that was warranted - See paragraphs 30 to 61.

Labour Law - Topic 435

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Boards - Jurisdiction - Canada Industrial Relations Board - The plaintiffs were employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) - The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) was the trade union that was the certified bargaining agent for the plaintiffs - The plaintiffs' action alleged that CPR and TCRC (the defendants) had acted in a collusive manner in the negotiation and renewal of the collective agreement that became effective in January 2003 - Further, the plaintiffs alleged that TCRC acted negligently in that negotiation and renewal - The defendants moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion - Both the claim in negligence and the claim of collusion essentially related to representation in the collective bargaining process - To the extent that the claim in negligence could be distinguished from the collusion claim, the authorities supported the position that the negligence claim fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of CIRB - See paragraphs 62 to 76.

Labour Law - Topic 2247

Unions - Constitution and bylaws - General - Effect on civil action - The plaintiffs were employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) - The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) was the trade union that was the certified bargaining agent for the plaintiffs - The plaintiffs' action alleged that CPR and TCRC (the defendants) had acted in a collusive manner in the negotiation and renewal of the collective agreement that became effective in January 2003 - Further, the plaintiffs alleged that TCRC acted negligently in that negotiation and renewal - The defendants moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was contractually barred because the plaintiffs had commenced their action without first exhausting the remedies available to them under the union's constitution and bylaws - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion - As a result of not having availed themselves of the process that they had previously agreed to, the plaintiffs were contractually barred from access to the court - See paragraphs 77 to 87.

Labour Law - Topic 2706

Unions - Duties - To represent members of bargaining unit - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the duty of fair representation is intended to combat 'improper motives', 'unlawful conduct', 'bad faith' or 'arbitrary behaviour'. Moreover, ... this duty of fair representation not only applies to the grievance and arbitration procedures contained in a collective agreement, but also extends to the negotiation and renewal processes of a collective agreement. ...  Put otherwise, in the context of the collective bargaining process, s. 37 of the [Canada Labour] Code imposes upon the union a duty to fairly represent its members in the rights that they have acquired by virtue of the collective agreement. However, in addition, the duty extends outside the term of the collective agreement. Therefore, although the existence of the duty does not preclude a union from making concessions with respect to existing rights or privileges of its members as part of the bargaining process, the union is required, in making those concessions, not to act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith during the collective bargaining process. Consequently, a clear effort by a union to ignore the interests of a minority in negotiations, while at the same time colluding with an employer to achieve a result favourable to a majority interest, would violate the duty of fair representation, irrespective of whether the collective agreement is ratified or not." - See paragraphs 56 and 57.

Labour Law - Topic 6906

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - [See both Labour Law - Topic 435 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7205

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - [See both Labour Law - Topic 435 ].

Practice - Topic 5359.1

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Lack of jurisdiction - [See both Labour Law - Topic 435 ].

Cases Noticed:

Orchard v. Tunney et al. (1955), 15 W.W.R.(N.S.) 49 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

United Steelworkers of America, Local 7619 v. Stoyles (1984), 55 B.C.L.R. 107 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Mulherin v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 7884, [1987] 4 W.W.R. 603 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Duke v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1989), 98 N.B.R.(2d) 91; 248 A.P.R. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Collins v. Transport and Allied Workers Union (1991), 94 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 346; 298 A.P.R. 346 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Craig Media Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1900 et al., [2003] 9 W.W.R. 183; 342 A.R. 371; 2003 ABQB 841, refd to. [para. 5].

A-Channel Edmonton v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1900 - see Craig Media Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1900 et al.

Adams v. Vancouver Symphony Society and Musicians Association, Local 145, [1976] 1 Can. L.R.B.R. 192 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Cairns et al., [2001] 4 F.C. 139; 270 N.R. 237; 2001 FCA 133, refd to. [para. 32].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81; 1990 CanLII 110, refd to. [para. 36].

Tomchuk v. University of Winnipeg Faculty Association (2008), 229 Man.R.(2d) 298; 2008 MBQB 168, refd to. [para. 40].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 41].

Giesbrecht v. McNeilly et al. (2008), 225 Man.R.(2d) 223; 419 W.A.C. 223; 2008 MBCA 22, refd to. [para. 41].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23; 2000 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 43].

Cairns v. B.L.E. (1999), 58 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 55 (C.I.R.B.), refd to. [para. 50].

Cairns v. B.L.E., [2000] C.I.R.B.D. No. 24, refd to. [para. 51].

Soulière v. Association of Postal Officials of Canada (2002), 94 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 307 (C.I.R.B.), refd to. [para. 53].

Connolly v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 25 (1998), 45 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 161 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 54].

Phillips v. Harrison (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 69; 2000 MBCA 150, refd to. [para. 59].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 60].

Paulet v. Brandon University Faculty Association et al. (1991), 75 Man.R.(2d) 227; 6 W.A.C. 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Gagnon v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild and Laurentian Pilotage Authority, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 509; 53 N.R. 100, refd to. [para. 70].

Rowel v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 206 et al. (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 72; 351 W.A.C. 72; 2005 MBCA 82, refd to. [para. 72].

Rowell et al. v. Manitoba (2006), 201 Man.R.(2d) 227; 366 W.A.C. 227; 2006 MBCA 14, refd to. [para. 74].

Orchard v. Tunney et al., [1957] S.C.R. 436, refd to. [para. 79].

Clark et al. v. Gilbert et al. (1996), 24 O.T.C. 137; 143 D.L.R.(4th) 166 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 79].

White et al. v. Kuzych, [1951] A.C. 585 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers' Int. Union v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, [1973] S.C.R. 756, refd to. [para. 80].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed.) (2010 Looseleaf), vol. 2, para. 13.850 [para. 32].

Counsel:

Sidney Green, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

Scott R. Gordon, for the defendant, Canadian Pacific Railway;

Tony M. Marques, for the defendant, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference.

This motion was heard by Saull, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on January 28, 2011.