Toussaint v. Conseil canadien des relations du travail et al., (1993) 160 N.R. 396 (FCA)

• Judge: Marceau, MacGuigan and Décary, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 21, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 160 N.R. 396 (FCA)

Toussaint v. CLRB (1993), 160 N.R. 396 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

M. Jean-Robert Toussaint, domicilié et résidant au 9295, 24e avenue, app. 4, cité et district de Montréal (requérant) c. Conseil Canadien des Relations du Travail, ayant une place d'affaires au Complexe Guy-Favreau, 200, boul. René-Levesque ouest, suite 1202, cité et district de Montréal, (intimé) et Société Canadienne des Postes, ayant une place d'affairs au 715, rue Peel, 2e étage (Affaires juridiques), cité et district de Montréal (intimee) et Syndicat des Postiers du Canada, ayant une place d'affaires au 1500, boul. de Maisonneuve est, bureau 303, cité et district de Montréal (intimé) et Procureur Général du Canada, représentant Sa Majesté du Chef du Canada, ayant un bureau d'affaires au Complexe Guy Favreau, 200 ouest, boul. René-Lévesque, 9e étage, Tour est, cité et district de Montréal (mis en cause)

(A-316-92)

Indexed As: Toussaint v. Conseil canadien des relations du travail et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Marceau, MacGuigan and Décary, JJ.A.

June 21, 1993.

Summary:

Toussaint was a casual employee with Canada Post Corp. He was dismissed. The union did not pursue his greivance to arbi­tration. Toussaint filed a complaint under s. 37 of the Canada Labour Code, alleging that his union failed in its duty of fair represen­tation. The Canada Labour Relations Board dis­missed the com­plaint. Toussaint applied to quash the Board's deci­sion.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 2706

Unions - Duties - To represent members of bargaining unit - Canada Post Corp. dis­missed a casual employee - His union tried to have him reinstated through dis­cussions with Canada Post - The union however, decided not to pursue arbitration proceed­ings, when arbitrators ruled that they had no jurisdiction respecting com­plaints by casual employees because of the wording of the collective agreement - The employee com­plained of unfair representa­tion by his union (Canada Labour Code, s. 37) - The Canada Labour Relations Board dismissed the com­plaint - The Federal Court of Appeal ref­used to quash the Board's decision where the decision was not patently unreasonable - Further, the court could not deal with the validity of the collective agreement provi­sion, where this argument was not raised before the Board.

Cases Noticed:

Poirier v. Canada (Minister of Veterans Affairs), [1989] 3 F.C. 233; 96 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 37 [para. 2]; sect. 57(5) [para. 5].

Counsel:

Jean-Yves Brière, for the applicant;

Pascale Racicot, for the respondent, Canada Labour Relations Board;

Luc Beaulieu, for the respondent, Canada Post Corporation;

Paul Lesage, for the respondent, Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

Solicitors of Record:

Brière, Gonneville, Montréal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Legal Services, Canada Labour Relations Board, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respon­dent, Canada Labour Relations Board;

Ogilvy, Renault, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent, Canada Post Corporation;

Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Cleary, Larivière & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent, Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

This application was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on June 21, 1993, before Marceau, MacGuigan and Décary, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered orally from the bench on the same date by Décary, J.A.