Gagnon v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild and Laurentian Pilotage Authority, (1984) 53 N.R. 100 (SCC)

• Judge: Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1984), 53 N.R. 100 (SCC);1984 CanLII 18 (SCC);[1984] ACS no 24;53 NR 100;[1984] 1 SCR 509;9 DLR (4th) 641;[1984] 1 SCR 582;[1984] SCJ No 24 (QL);1984 CanLII 141 (SCC)

Gagnon v. Merchant Service Guild (1984), 53 N.R. 100 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Gagnon v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild and Laurentian Pilotage Authority

Indexed As: Gagnon v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild and Laurentian Pilotage Authority

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

June 7, 1984.

Summary:

A shuttle boat captain employed by the Laurentian Pilotage Authority was transferred to the position of maintenance work, which he found demeaning. His grievance was taken to all three levels by his union, the Canadian Merchant Service Guild. The union refused to take the grievance to arbitration on the advice of its legal counsel, because a transfer was not referable to arbitration. The captain took the position that the transfer was a disguised dismissal and was referable to arbitration. He was dismissed several months later, which he did not contest. The captain brought an action against the union for damages for its failure in its duty of representation of him by refusing to take the grievance to arbitration. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the action. The Quebec Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1981] C.A. 431 dismissed the appeal. Both courts concluded that the union breached its duty of representation by failing to adequately investigate the matter, notwithstanding that the union knew all the facts of the case, was not hostile to the captain and relied on its lawyer's opinion. The union appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the union did not breach its duty to the captain and found that the courts below erred in concluding that the failure to investigate was a breach of duty, where an investigation would not have more fully informed the union. The court set out the principles governing a union's duty of representation of a member on a grievance.

Labour Law - Topic 2706

Unions - Duties - To represent member of bargaining unit - Grievances - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed and defined the general principles governing a union's duty of representation of an employee on a grievance - See paragraphs 13 to 38 - The court held that a union did not violate its duty in refusing to take an employee's grievance to arbitration after representing the employee on the grievance at the three levels of the grievance procedure, where it was aware of the facts, showed no hostility toward the employee and relied on its lawyer's opinion that the matter was not referable to arbitration - See paragraphs 39 to 69.

Practice - Topic 8808

Appeals - Duty of appeal court regarding conclusions or interpretation of evidence by trial judge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it could overrule lower courts on conclusions of law from found facts - See paragraphs 65 to 68.

Cases Noticed:

Brunet v. General Motors, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 537; 13 N.R. 233, consd. [paras. 4 and 52].

Rayonier Canada (B.C.) Ltd. and I.W.A., Re, [1975] 2 Can. L.R.B.R. 196, consd. [para. 20].

Hubert v. Syndicat des policierspompiers de la ville de Nicolet et La ville de Nicolet, [1980] T.T. 302, refd to. [para. 26].

Guerard v. Travailleurs canadiens de l'alimentation et d'autres industries, local 748 et Sodor Inc., [1980] T.T. 420, refd to. [para. 26].

Godin v. Fraternite unie des charpentiers et menuisiers d'Amerique, local 2533 et Ideal Builders Hardware Corp., [1979] T.T. 157, refd to. [para. 26].

Becotte v. Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, local 301 et Association d'action recreative et culturelle, [1979] T.T. 231, refd to. [para. 26].

Courchesne v. Syndicat des travailleurs de la corporation de batteries Cegelec de Louiseville et Corporation de batteries Cegelec, [1978] T.T. 328, refd to. [para. 26].

Boulay v. Fraternite des policiers de la communaute urbaine de Montreal Inc. et Conseil de securite de la C.U.M., [1978] T.T. 319, refd to. [para. 26].

Baird v. Local 647, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Rutherford's Dairy Limited, [1972] O.L.R.B. Reports 240, refd to. [para. 27].

Ellens v. Service Employees' Union, Local 204, [1972] O.L.R.B. Reports 770, refd to. [para. 27].

Van Der Wolf v. United Steelworkers of America, District Number 6 v. Essex International of Canada Ltd., [1972] O.L.R.B. Reports 104, refd to. [para. 27].

Bachiu v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005 v. Steel Company of Canada Ltd., [1975] O.L.R.B. Reports 919, refd to. [para. 27].

Fisher v. Pemberton et al. (1969), 8 D.L.R.(3d) 521, consd. [para. 30].

Syndicat catholique des employes de magasins de Quebec Inc. v. Compagnie Paquet Ltee, [1959] S.C.R. 206, consd. [para. 37].

Dorval v. Bouvier, [1968] S.C.R. 288, consd. [para. 65].

Gagnon v. Gauthier, [1958] Q.B. 401, consd. [para. 65].

Fabrique de la paroisse de Saint-Philippe d'Arvida et al. v. Desgagne (1984), 51 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Code, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 212, sect. 7(1) [para. 16].

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1, sect. 136.1 [para. 14].

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 47.2 [para. 15].

Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 228, sect. 68 [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gagnon, Jean Denis, Le devoir de representation des associations de salaries en droit canadien et quebecois (1981), 41 R. du B. 639 [para. 34].

Weiler, P., Reconcilable Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law (1980), pp. 137-139 [para. 25].

Zwarts, Margriet, The Duty of Fair Representation: Individual Rights in the Collective Bargaining Process, or Squaring the Circle (1982), 28 McGill L.J. 59, 65 [para. 64]; 86 et seq. [para. 25].

Counsel:

Irving Gaul and Marie-France Paquet, for the appellant;

Louis-Marie Lavoie and Robert Decary, for the respondent.

This case was heard on March 13, 1984, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 7, 1984 Chouinard, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: