Kindersley and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union et al., (1996) 151 Sask.R. 112 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 15, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 151 Sask.R. 112 (QB)

Kindersley & Dist. Co-op v. RWDSU (1996), 151 Sask.R. 112 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of Judicial Review Pursuant to Part 52 of the Rules of the Court of Queen's Bench

And In The Matter Of an application to set aside two decisions of the Labour Relations Board Dated June 23, 1995 and February 27, 1996, two orders of the Labour Relations Board Dated June 23, 1995 and two orders of the Labour Relations Board Dated February 27, 1996

Kindersley and District Co-operative Limited (plaintiff) v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (defendant) and The Labour Relations Board (respondent)

(1996 Q.B. No. 765)

Indexed As: Kindersley and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Klebuc, J.

October 15, 1996.

Summary:

In 1961, the Saskatchewan Labour Rela­tions Board ordered that all employees of the Kindersley and District Co-operative Ltd. (the Kindersley Co-op) constituted an ap­propriate bargaining unit, subject to specific managerial exceptions. The Board also ruled that the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (the Union) represented a ma­jority of employees in the bargaining unit. Finally, the Board ordered the Kindersley Co-op to bargain collectively with the Union. In 1995, the Kindersley Co-op took over the operations of the Eatonia and Dis­trict Co-operative Ltd. (the Eatonia Co-op). The Union then applied for an order amend­ing the 1961 certification order to include the Eatonia Co-op employees, other than specified management personnel. By two orders dated June 23, 1995, the Board ordered that all employees at the Kindersley and Eatonia Co-ops constituted an appropri­ate bargaining unit and that the Union rep­resented the majority of employees in the unit. The Board also provided "written reasons of an even date which stated that the amended certification order overrode the scope clause in the Collective Agreement [already in place at Kindersley Co-op] and consequently, the Eatonia [Co-op] employees were entitled to the full benefit of the Collective Agreement". The Kindersley Co-op applied to set aside the Board's deci­sions of June 23, 1995.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the standard of review respecting decisions of statutory tribunals - See paragraphs 9 to 15.

Labour Law - Topic 603

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Provin­cial boards - Acting in excess of jurisdic­tion - [See first two Labour Law - Topic 4502 ].

Labour Law - Topic 604

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Provin­cial boards - Whether decision manifestly unreasonable - [See third Labour Law - Topic 4502 ].

Labour Law - Topic 4502

Unions - Certification - Amendment of - Jurisdiction - Sections 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) of the Trade Union Act (Sask.) authorized the Labour Relations Board to make orders determining the appropriate bargaining unit, determining what trade union, if any, represented a majority of bargaining unit employees and requiring that employer and union bargain collectively - Section 5(k) authorized the board to amend orders made under ss. 5(a), 5(b) or 5(c) - In 1995, the Board, upon application by a union, amended a 1961 certification order to include additional employees - The employer argued that the Board erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to deal with the s. 5(k) amendment appli­cation as if it were an application pursuant to ss. 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected this argument - See paragraphs 16 to 20.

Labour Law - Topic 4502

Unions - Certification - Amendment of - Jurisdiction - Section 25 of the Trade Union Act (Sask.) provided for the arbitra­tion process for disputes related to collec­tive agreements - In 1995, the Board amended a 1961 certification order to include additional employees in the rele­vant bargaining unit - The Board also indicated that the amended certification order overrode the scope clause in the collective agreement already in place and that the additional employees were entitled to the full benefit of the collective agree­ment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench quashed the decision because the Board erred by intervening and substituting its opinion for the arbitral process contemplated by s. 25 and the collective agreement when it attempted to interpret the applicability of the collective agreement to the new employees - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Labour Law - Topic 4502

Unions - Certification - Amendment of - Jurisdiction - In 1995, the Board amended a 1961 certification order to include addi­tional employees in the relevant bargaining unit - The Board also indicated that the amended certification order overrode the scope clause in the collective agreement already in place and that the additional employees were entitled to the full benefit of the collective agreement - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench quashed the decision because the Board's ruling that its certification overrode the scope clause in the collective agreement was patently unreasonable - See para­graphs 27 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Board of Education of the Regina School Division No. 4 et al. v. Teachers of Saskatchewan et al. (1996), 148 Sask.R. 81; 134 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Kjeldsen - see Board of Education of the Regina School Division No. 4 et al. v. Teachers of Saskatchewan et al.

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1995] 7 W.W.R. 1; 131 Sask.R. 275; 95 W.A.C. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, consd. [para. 10].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Le Syn­dicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 457, refd to. [para. 12].

Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des em­ployés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, consd. [para. 12].

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CNS) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Domtar Inc. v. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756; 154 N.R. 104; 55 Q.A.C. 241; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 12].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 12].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian As­sociation of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181, refd to. [para. 12].

Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 614; 123 N.R. 161; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 520, refd to. [para. 12].

Sebastian v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1994), 125 Sask.R. 28; 81 W.A.C. 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1; 27 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Goldhawk - see Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al.

National Corn Growers Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 13].

Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Associ­ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15; 91 C.L.L.C. 14,002; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 48 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 739; 183 N.R. 184, refd to. [para. 14].

Shalansky and Saskatchewan Union of Nurses v. Regina Pasqua Hospital, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 303; 47 N.R. 76; 22 Sask.R. 153, refd to. [para. 15].

Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476; 55 N.R. 194; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 84 C.L.L.C. 14,070; 14 Admin. L.R. 133, refd to. [para. 15].

CSP Foods Ltd. v. Grain Services Union (CLC) (1992), 97 Sask.R. 190; 12 W.A.C. 190; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 542 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Welk v. Saskatchewan Social Services Appeal Board (1986), 28 D.L.R.(4th) 475 (Sask. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1986), 68 N.R. 240; 49 Sask.R. 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 15].

University of Saskatchewan v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 834; 22 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 16].

University of Saskatchewan v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 et al. (1977), 22 N.R. 316 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Prince Albert Co-Operative Association Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 496 and Labour Relations Board (Sask.), [1983] 1 W.W.R. 549; 20 Sask.R. 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Canadian Union of Public Employees - Ontario Hydro Employees Union, Local 1000 v. Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission (1971), 23 L.A.C. 111 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 22].

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 414 v. Industrial Food Services Ltd. (1961), 12 L.A.C. 90, refd to. [para. 22].

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 507 v. Canadian General Electric Co. (1950), 2 L.A.C. 573 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 22].

Welland Chemical Ltd. v. Energy and Chemical Workers Union, Local 914, Re (1993), 38 L.A.C.(4th) 124 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 22].

Boise Cascade Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 92 (1990), 17 L.A.C.(4th) 347 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. v. Interna­tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 764 (1984), 16 L.A.C.(3d) 229 (Can.), refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian Association of Industrial Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 18 v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 6523, [1979] 1 Can. L.R.B.R. 222 (B.C.), consd. [para. 22].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, consd. [para. 23].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 23].

New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97, refd to. [para. 23].

Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; 193 N.R. 81, consd. [para. 28].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 v. Ne-Ho Enterprises Ltd. et al., LRB File No. 095-89 (1989), 4th Quarter SLR p. 78, refd to. [para. 30].

National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians v. CKLW Radio Broadcasting Ltd. (1977), 77 C.L.L.C. 16,110 (Can. L.R.B.), consd. [para. 30].

Tandy Electronics Ltd. (Radio Shack) v. and United Steelworkers of America (1980), 115 D.L.R.(3d) 197 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Labour Relations Board (N.S.) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 311; 49 N.R. 107; 60 N.S.R.(2d) 369; 128 A.P.R. 369, refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. T-17, sect. 5(a), sect. 5(b), sect. 5(c), sect. 5(k), sect. 21, sect. 25 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Bar Association, Is Double Breasting Still in Style - Judicial Review Beyond Lester (November 1994), gen­erally [para. 9].

Canadian Bar Association, What is This Thing Called Judicial Review (1995), generally [para. 9].

Counsel:

L.F. Seiferling, Q.C., for the applicant;

L.W. Kowalchuk, for the defendant, Union;

W.R. Pelton, for the Labour Relations Board.

This case was heard by Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon.

Klebuc, J., delivered the following decision on October 15, 1996.