Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union v. K-Bro Linens System Inc. et al., (2015) 483 Sask.R. 96 (QB)

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Judge: Barrington-Foote, J.
• Citation: (2015), 483 Sask.R. 96 (QB),2015 SKQB 300
• Date: 23 September 2015

Joint Bd. v. K-Bro Linens (2015), 483 Sask.R. 96 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.057

Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union (applicant) v. K-Bro Linens System Inc., The Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations Inc., Health Shared Services Saskatchewan, and Regina Qu'appelle Health Region (respondents) and Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (respondent)

OC(2015 Q.B.G. No. 132; 2015 SKQB 300)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union v. K-Bro Linens System Inc. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Barrington-Foote, J.

September 23, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant, Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), was certified to represent a bargaining unit made up of the employees at the Regina laundry facility which had been operated by Regina Qu'Appelle Health District (RQHR). Health Shared Services Saskatchewan (Health) provided administrative and support services to RQHR and other Saskatchewan health regions. By a Master Services Agreement (MSA) dated December 16, 2013, Health contracted K-Bro Linens Systems Inc. (K-Bro), to clean linens for RQHR and other Saskatchewan health districts. K-Bro was to provide those services in a new laundry facility to be built, owned and operated by K-Bro in Regina, which would result in the closure of the RQHR laundry facility and the loss of the jobs of all employees at that facility. The RWDSU applied for various forms of relief, including common employer and successorship declarations. The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board dismissed that application. The RWDSU applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board failed to fulfil its statutory mandate to interpret ss. 37 and 37.3 of the Trade Union Act according to law. It also submitted that the Board committed reviewable errors of fact.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application regarding the successorship issue. The court allowed the application regarding the common employer issue and referred that matter to the Board.

Administrative Law - Topic 5060

Judicial review - Certiorari - The record - What constitutes the "record" (incl. sufficiency of record or return) - [See Labour Law - Topic 811 ].

Labour Law - Topic 30

Definitions - Employer defined - [See Labour Law - Topic 4916 ].

Labour Law - Topic 576

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Standard of review - A health district administrator hired a company to clean linens for the health district at a new laundry facility - The agreement resulted in the closure of the health district's laundry facility and the loss of the jobs of all employees at that facility - The employees' union sought common employer and successorship declarations - The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board dismissed that application - The union applied for judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the standard of review - See paragraphs 19 to 30.

Labour Law - Topic 811

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Procedure - Evidence - The record - The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board rejected an application for common employer and successorship declarations - The union applied for judicial review and filed a Form 3-57 in accordance with rule 3-57 of the Queen's Bench Rules - In response, the Registrar of the Board sent some items to the Local Registrar, but did not send a certified copy of the record of proceedings in Form 3-58 as required by rule 3-58, and did not send all of the evidence and exhibits specified in rule 3-57(2)(d), citing the past practice of the Board of not including exhibits and other materials filed during a hearing and cost considerations - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the rules were clear - The Registrar was obliged to comply with a notice by sending a certified copy of the record of proceedings in Form 3-58 - If the Registrar could not comply, he had to explain why in Form 3-58 - Here, there was no such explanation, whether in Form 3-58 or otherwise - The Registrar was accordingly obliged to send the evidence and exhibits, as the court had not dispensed with that requirement pursuant to rule 3-57(3) - It was for the court to decide what records were relevant - See paragraphs 5 to 8.

Labour Law - Topic 4912

Unions - Successor rights and obligations - New or successor employer - What constitutes - A health district administrator hired a private company to clean linens for the health district at a new laundry facility - The agreement resulted in the closure of the health district's own laundry facility and the loss of the jobs of all employees at that facility - The employees' union sought a successorship declaration (Trade Union Act, s. 37) - The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, holding that there was no business to be transferred and that this was a contracting out situation rather than a successorship - The union applied for judicial review, claiming that the Board applied an incorrect legal test in relation to successorship - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the union's argument - The Board adopted and applied a reasonable interpretation of the law, including using a contextual and fact-based analysis in reaching its decision on successorship - See paragraphs 32 to 55.

Labour Law - Topic 4916

Unions - Successor rights and obligations - Spin-offs and declaration that related businesses are one employer (incl. common employer) - A health district administrator hired a private company to clean linens for the health district at a new laundry facility - The agreement resulted in the closure of the health district's own laundry facility and the loss of the jobs of all employees at that facility - The employees' union sought a common employer declaration (Trade Union Act, s. 37.3) - The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board dismissed the application - The union applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board misconstrued the law relating to s. 37.3, misapplied the facts and failed to give reasons as to whether the private company was a common employer with the health district administrator and health district - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the Board's decision regarding common employers fell short in one area (i.e., the Board failed to explain how it dealt with the issue of whether the private company was a common employer with the health district administrator or the health district) - That matter was referred to the Board - See paragraphs 56 to 73.

Counsel:

Larry Kowalchuk and Micah Kowalchuk, for the applicant;

Larry Seiferling, Q.C., for K-Bro Linens;

Leah Schatz., for Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations; Health Shared Services and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region.

This application was heard before Barrington-Foote, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on September 23, 2015.