United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 et al. v. FirstSask Credit Union et al., 2012 SKQB 253

• Judge: Scherman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 25, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKQB 253;(2012), 398 Sask.R. 317 (QB)

UFCW v. FirstSask Credit (2012), 398 Sask.R. 317 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.023

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 and Darren Kurmey (plaintiffs) v. Affinity Credit Union and FirstSask Credit Union (defendants)

(2009 Q.B.G. No. 993; 2012 SKQB 253)

Indexed As: United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 et al. v. FirstSask Credit Union et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Scherman, J.

June 25, 2012.

Summary:

Affinity Credit Union and FirstSask Credit Union merged in January 2008 and carried on operations under the name Affinity Credit Union (ACU). Prior to the merger, the plaintiff union was the certified bargaining agent for the employees of FirstSask. Affinity was a non-unionized employer. FirstSask, Affinity and the union entered into a voluntary recognition agreement that contemplated the merged ACU, as employer, voluntarily recognizing the union as entitled to become the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees of ACU. The Labour Relations Board dismissed the union's application to extend its existing certification order to include employees and locations from the Affinity side of the merger. The union commenced an action, seeking a declaration that the voluntary recognition agreement was valid, subsisting and binding upon the defendants and other relief. The union applied to designate a proper officer of ACU for examination for discovery. The union asked that the court designate Keter, who was the CEO of FirstSask prior to the merger and was now CEO of ACU. ACU said the appropriate person to be designated was Lane, the Chief Operating Officer and CEO designate of ACU.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench designated Lane as the proper officer of ACU for examination for discovery.

Practice - Topic 4243

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Corporations - Officer of - Affinity Credit Union and FirstSask Credit Union merged in January 2008 and carried on operations under the name Affinity Credit Union (ACU) - Prior to the merger, the plaintiff union was the certified bargaining agent for the employees of FirstSask - Affinity was a non-unionized employer - FirstSask, Affinity and the union entered into a voluntary recognition agreement that contemplated the merged ACU, as employer, voluntarily recognizing the union as entitled to become the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees of ACU - The Labour Relations Board dismissed the union's application to extend its existing certification order to include employees and locations from the Affinity side of the merger - The union commenced an action, seeking a declaration that the voluntary recognition agreement was valid, subsisting and binding upon the defendants and other relief - The union applied to designate a proper officer of ACU for examination for discovery - The union asked that the court designate Keter, who was the CEO of FirstSask prior to the merger and was now CEO of ACU - ACU said the appropriate person to be designated was Lane, the Chief Operating Officer and CEO designate of ACU - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench designated Lane as the proper officer of ACU for examination for discovery - Both Keter and Lane held positions of sufficient importance to adequately represent the corporate interests with sufficient authority to bind the corporation - However, since the voluntary recognition agreement had its impact upon the Affinity employee complement, the evidence and logic led the court to conclude that Lane, as CEO of Affinity, would have had a greater personal involvement in the issue of voluntary recognition and the resulting agreement - The court also held that it was appropriate to consider the anticipated retirement of Keter when designating a proper officer - "Where the issue of who has the most significant personal connection with the subject of the law suit is found to approach a balance, then considerations of continuity of responsible personal, efficiency in the management of litigation and potential future hardship for a proposed proper office should, in my opinion be considered."

Cases Noticed:

Tundra Mechanical & Millwrighting (1988) Ltd. v. Ecco Heating Products Ltd., [1997] 5 W.W.R. 43; 154 Sask.R. 56 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Counsel:

Andrew S. Buchanan, for the plaintiffs;

John R. Beckman, Q.C., for the defendants.

This application was heard by Scherman, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on June 25, 2012.