Sperling Industries Ltd. et al. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 254 et al., (2005) 201 Man.R.(2d) 26 (CA)

• Judge: Twaddle, Kroft and Freedman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: September 27, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2005), 201 Man.R.(2d) 26 (CA);2005 MBCA 107

Sperling Ind. Ltd. v. PPF (2005), 201 Man.R.(2d) 26 (CA);

    366 W.A.C. 26

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.009

Sperling Industries Ltd., Guillerm (Willie) Hildebrandt, Frank Roe and Warren Nordquist (applicants/appellants) v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 254 and The Manitoba Labour Board (respondents/respondents)

(AI 05-30-06071; 2005 MBCA 107)

Indexed As: Sperling Industries Ltd. et al. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 254 et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Twaddle, Kroft and Freedman, JJ.A.

September 27, 2005.

Summary:

An employer (Sperling) applied to quash a certificate certifying the respondent union by Manitoba Labour Board and the Board's order imposing a first collective agreement. The application included requests for interlocutory orders with respect to disclosure and an interlocutory injunction staying the agreement. Sperling filed a second application joined by three employees which sought the same remedies and raised Charter issues. Sperling also sought production of documents from the Board and union. As the first collective agreement was about to expire and there were no members left in the bargaining unit, the union undertook not to take any steps to enforce its rights under the certificate. The union was permitted to withdraw from the proceedings. The issue of mootness was raised by the parties. Sperling sought to expunge portions of an affidavit filed by the union (permitted to participate respecting mootness issue).

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 193 Man.R.(2d) 93, allowed the expungement motion in part and dismissed the outstanding applications as moot. Sperling and others appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. There was no basis on which to interfere with the motions judge's decision.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - An employer (Sperling) applied to quash a certificate certifying the respondent union by the Manitoba Labour Board and the Board's order imposing a first collective agreement - Sperling filed a second application joined by three employees which sought the same remedies and raised Charter issues - The collective agreement was about to expire - The sole employee in the certified bargaining unit had resigned - The union undertook not to take any steps to enforce its rights under the certificate - The union was permitted to withdraw from the proceedings - The Board was still a party - The issue of mootness was raised - Sperling and the three employees intended to proceed with the application to quash the certificate due to concerns with the precedents established by the certification order and the process followed - A motions judge dismissed the outstanding applications as moot - The Board's presence on the applications (limited to its jurisdiction) would not provide the vigorous adversarial development of arguments on all aspects of the issues - There was no compelling reason to hear the case - The court declined to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the matter despite the mootness - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - There was no basis on which to interfere with the motions judge's decision.

Counsel:

D.G. Newman, Q.C., and M.R. Bueckert, for the appellants;

T.D. Gisser, for the Manitoba Labour Board;

E. Szach, for the Attorney General of Manitoba.

This appeal was heard on September 27, 2005, before Twaddle, Kroft and Freedman, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Twaddle, J.A., pronounced the following decision for the court on that date.