Pointe-Claire (Ville) v. Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les et de bureau, section locale 57 (S.E.P.B. - U.I.E.P.B. - C.T.C. - F.T.Q.), (1997) 211 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, and Cory, JJ.
• Citation: (1997), 211 N.R. 1 (SCC),211 NR 1,[1997] SCJ No 41 (QL),28 CCEL (2d) 177,[1997] ACS no 41,[1997] 1 SCR 1015,DTE 97T-571,1997 CanLII 390 (SCC),46 Admin LR (2d) 1,JE 97-1055,146 DLR (4th) 1,AZ-97111051
• Date: 24 April 1997
• Subject Matter: LABOUR LAW

Pointe-Claire v. PEU (1997), 211 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

La ville de Pointe-Claire (appelante) v. Le Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les et de bureau, section locale 75 (S.E.P.B. - U.I.E.P.B. - C.T.C. - F.T.Q.) (intimé) et Le Tribunal du travail, le Commissaire général du travail et Réal Bibeault (mis en cause)

(24845)

Indexed As: Pointe-Claire (Ville) v. Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les et de bureau, section locale 57 (S.E.P.B. - U.I.E.P.B. - C.T.C. - F.T.Q.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, and Cory, JJ.

April 24, 1997.

Summary:

The city of Pointe-Claire asked an em­ployment agency to send someone to work as receptionist at City Hall for six weeks. The agency assigned Ginette Lebeau to the position. The assignment was renewed for an additional 18 weeks. During the assign­ments, Lebeau's salary was paid by the agency. In turn the agency billed the City. The City supervised Lebeau's training and work and dictated the working conditions. After Lebeau's two assignments, the City hired her as a permanent employee. The union repre­senting most of the City's employees applied pursuant to s. 39 of Que­bec's Labour Code to include Lebeau as part of the bargaining unit for the period of Lebeau's two tem­porary assignments. The labour commis­sioner general, in a decision reported D.T.E. 92T-517, allowed the ap­plication, holding that the City was Lebeau's true employer during the assignment periods. The City ap­pealed.

The Quebec Labour Court, in a decision reported D.T.E. 93T-806, dismissed the appeal. The City applied for evocation.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application. The City appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Deschamps, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported [1995] R.J.Q. 1671, dismissed the appeal. The City appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 604

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Provincial boards - Whether decision patently unreasonable - An employment agency assigned someone to work as re­ceptionist for a municipality - The agency paid the receptionist and billed the mu­nicipality - The municipality supervised the receptionist's training and work and dictated the working conditions - The union representing municipal employees applied to include the receptionist in the bargaining unit - The Quebec Labour Court affirmed a decision allowing the application and holding that the munici­pality was the receptionist's true employer - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Labour Court's decision as not being patently unreasonable in reasoning because the Labour Court used a comprehensive approach to determine who was the recep­tionist's true employer - See paragraphs 33 to 58.

Labour Law - Topic 604

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Provincial boards - Whether decision patently unreasonable - An employment agency assigned someone to work as re­ceptionist for a municipality - The agency paid the receptionist and billed the mu­nicipality - The municipality supervised the receptionist's training and work and dictated the working conditions - The union representing municipal employees applied to include the receptionist in the bargaining unit - The Quebec Labour Court affirmed a decision allowing the application and holding that the munici­pality was the receptionist's true employer - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Labour Court's decision as not being patently unreasonable in result because there was no major problem respecting the application of the collective agreement and no inconsistency in applying Quebec's Labour Code and Labour Standards Act - See paragraphs 59 to 63.

Labour Law - Topic 615

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Quebec Labour Court - [See both Labour Law - Topic 604 ].

Labour Law - Topic 4052

Unions - Certification - Parties - Employer defined - An employment agency assigned someone to work as re­ceptionist for a municipality - The agency paid the receptionist and billed the mu­nicipality - The municipality supervised the receptionist's training and work and dictated the working conditions - The union representing municipal employees applied to include the receptionist in the bargaining unit - The Quebec Labour Court affirmed a decision allowing the application and holding that the munici­pality was the receptionist's true employer - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Labour Court's decision - The court held that a comprehensive approach was more appropriate to determine who was the real employer in a tripartite arrange­ment - Applicable criteria would include selection process, hiring, discipline, evalu­ation, supervision, assignment of duties, remuneration and integration into the business - See paragraphs 33 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

Centre d'accueil Mgr Coderre v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (F.T.Q.), [1985] T.T. 291 (Que. Lab. Ct.), not folld. [para. 21].

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, refd to. [para. 28].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. 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. 28].

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. 28].

Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (C.S.N.) v. Union des em­ployés de service, local 298 (F.T.Q.), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 28].

U.E.S., local 298 v. Bibeault - see Union des employés de service.

Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (C.S.N.) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (F.T.Q.).

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des em­ployés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (C.S.N.) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (F.T.Q.).

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, refd to. [para. 28].

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. 28].

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. 28].

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. 28].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) and Econosult Inc. - see Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 28].

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, refd to. [para. 28].

Centre communautaire juridique de l'Estrie v. Sherbrooke (Ville) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 84; 201 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 28].

Syndicat des employés des hôpitaux de Val d'Or (C.S.N.) v. Syndicat des em­ployés de l'hôpital Malartic (C.S.N.), [1974] T.T. 425 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

Société d'énergie de la Baie James v. Léa Benoît & Associés Ltée, [1975] T.T. 323 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

Syndicat des professeurs du Québec v. Québec (Procureur général), [1970] T.T. 314 (Que. Lab. Ct.), consd. [para. 37].

Syndicat des fonctionnaires provinciaux du Québec Inc. v. Québec (Procureur géné­ral), [1984] T.T. 353 (Que. Lab. Ct.), consd. [para. 38].

Messageries dynamiques, division de groupe Québecor inc. v. Syndicat québécois de l'imprimerie et communi­cations, local 145, [1986] T.T. 431 (Que. Lab. Ct.), consd. [para. 39].

Caisse d'économie Hydro v. Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les et de bureau, section locale 57, [1988] T.T. 429 (Que. Lab. Ct.), consd. [para. 40].

Hôtel du Jardin c. Syndicat des salariés de l'Hôtel du Jardin (F.E.M.S.Q.), D.T.E. 91T-1122 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

Hôpital Royal Victoria v. Vassart, [1990] R.J.Q. 1961 (S.C.), folld. [para. 45].

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. York Condo­minium Corp., [1977] O.L.R.B. Rep. 645, refd to. [para. 50].

Hotel and Club Employees Union, Local 299 v. Sutton Place Hotel, [1980] O.L.R.B. Rep. 1538, refd to. [para. 50].

United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of Canada v. Sylvania Lighting Services, [1985] O.L.R.B. Rep. 1173, refd to. [para. 50].

National Automobile, Aerospace and Ag­ricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada v. Nichirin Inc., [1991] O.L.R.B. Rep. 78, refd to. [para. 50].

Labourers International Union of North America, Local 607 v. Grant Develop­ment Corp., [1993] O.L.R.B. Rep. 21, refd to. [para. 50].

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 586 v. Dare Personnel Inc., [1995] O.L.R.B. Rep. 935, refd to. [para. 50].

Nationair (Nolisair International Inc.), Re (1987), 70 di 44, refd to. [para. 50].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America Local Union 93 v. Templet Services, [1974] O.L.R.B. Rep. 606, refd to. [para. 50].

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 819 v. Tower Com­pany (1961) Ltd., [1979] O.L.R.B. Rep. 583, refd to. [para. 50].

Nolisair International Inc. (Nationair Canada), Re (1992), 89 di 94, refd to. [para. 50].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al. (1997), 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 69].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al. (1997), 209 N.R. 20 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 70].

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.(4th) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181, refd to. [para. 72].

Zeller's Inc. v. Agences de personnel Cavalier Inc., [1994] C.A.L.P. 719 (Que.), refd to. [para. 128].

Niagara Employment Agency Inc., Re, [1989] O.L.R.D. No. 921, refd to. [para. 139].

I.M. Personnel Agency Inc., Re, [1989] O.L.R.D. No. 970, refd to. [para. 139].

First Team Personnel Inc., Re, [1994] O.L.R.D No. 2630, refd to. [para. 139].

All-Work Inc., Re (1971), 193 N.L.R.B. 918 (U.S.), consd. [para. 140].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 16 [para. 132].

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 1(k), sect. 1(l) [para. 7]; sect. 39 [para. 8]; sect. 118 [para. 9]; sect. 119 [para. 10]; sect. 122 [para. 11]; sect. 139 [para. 12].

Labour Standards, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. N-1.1, sect. 1(12) [para. 142].

Québec Pension Plan, Act respecting the, R.S.Q. 1977, c. R-9, sect. 1(i) [para. 55].

Taxation Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. I-3, sect. 1 [para. 55].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arthurs, Harry William, Carter, D.D., Fudge, J., Glasbeek, H.J., and Trudeau, J., Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Canada (4th Ed. 1993), pp. 67, 68 [para. 101].

Bennion, Francis Alan Roscoe, Statutory Interpretation: A Code (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 679 [para. 88]; 680, 692 [para. 89].

Christie, Innis, England, Geoffrey, and Cotter, W. Brent, Employment Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1993), p. 36 [para. 147].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interprétation des lois, 2e éd. 1990, pp. 430 to 432 [para. 90].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2d Ed. 1991), pp. 378 to 380 [para. 90].

Dennard, H. Lane, and Northrup, Herbert R., Leased Employment: Character, Numbers and Labor Law Problems (1994), 28 Ga. L. Rev. 683, pp. 699 to 702 [para. 94].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 79, 85 to 86 [para. 90]; 131 [para. 87].

Dubé, J.-L., and Di Iorio, Nicola, Les normes du travail, 2e éd., 1992, pp. 16, 17, 27 to 37 [para. 106].

Gagnon, Robert P., Le droit du travail du Québec: pratiques et théories, 3e éd., 1996, pp. 46 to 51 [para. 103]; 180 [para. 33]; 243 [para. 74].

Gagnon, Robert P., LeBel, Louis, and Verge, Pierre, Droit du travail, 2e éd. 1991, pp. 10 [paras. 103, 104]; 11, 12 [paras. 103, 104, 105]; 13, 14 [paras. 103, 104]; 15 [para. 104]; 62, 63 [para. 142]; 487, 511 [para. 74]; 520 [para. 77]; 521, 537, 700 to 704 [para. 74].

Grant, Michel, and Laporte, Pierre, Salariés d'accord, ... mais de qui (à la recherche du véritable employeur): Analyse de la jurisprudence du Tribunal du travail concernant les entreprises de "placement de main-d'oeuvre" (1987), 47 R. du B. 1205, p. 1213 [para. 108].

Masse, Claude, Le nouveau Code civil du Québec et l'entrepreneur précaire, in Lamarche, L., éd., Emploi précaire et non-emploi: droits recherchés, 1994, 37, pp. 47, 48 [para. 103]; 49 to 52 [paras. 103, 106].

Moberly, Robert B., Temporary, Part-Time, and Other Atypical Employment Relationships in the United States (1987), 38 Lab. L.J. 689, p. 693 [paras. 94, 140].

Counsel:

Pierre-André Côté, and Michel Dupuy, for the appellant;

Pierre Gingras and Serge Cadieux, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Bélanger, Sauvé, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Pierre Gingras, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 6, 1996, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on April 24, 1997 and the following reasons were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (La Forest, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 64;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 65 to 149.