United Steel Workers of America, Local 1-207 v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al., (2008) 439 A.R. 234 (QB)

• Judge: Shelley, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 19, 2007
• Citations: (2008), 439 A.R. 234 (QB);2008 ABQB 91

USWA v. LRB (2008), 439 A.R. 234 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. FE.128

In The Matter Of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1, as amended;

And In The Matter Of an Application for Revocation of the Bargaining Rights of United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Brought by Certain Employees of Foothills Forest Products Inc. Affecting Foothills Forest Products Inc.

And In The Matter Of Foothills Forest Products Inc. as Employer;

And In The Matter Of an Alberta Labour Relations Board Decision Issued March 23, 2007.

United Steel Workers of America, Local 1-207 (applicant) v. Alberta Labour Relations Board, Foothills Forest Products Inc. and Certain Employees of Foothills Forest Products Inc. (respondents)

(0703 04713; 2008 ABQB 91)

Indexed As: United Steel Workers of America, Local 1-207 v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Shelley, J.

February 6, 2008.

Summary:

For almost 20 years, the applicant union had been the bargaining agent for the employees of a sawmill and planar mill owned by Weyerhauser Forest Products Inc. The mill closed and was eventually sold to Foothills Forest Products Inc. The Labour Relations Board (Alta.) found that Foothills was a successor employer. The union sought to organize a meeting with its members. The members circulated a petition seeking revocation of the union's bargaining rights and filed a revocation application with the Board. The Board dismissed the union's objections and allowed the revocation application. The union applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 9026

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction - Loss of - By fettering of discretion - [See first Labour Law - Topic 494 ].

Labour Law - Topic 494

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Duties of board - Revocation of certification or termination of bargaining rights - For almost 20 years, the applicant union had been the bargaining agent for the employees of a sawmill and planar mill owned by Weyerhauser Forest Products Inc. - The mill closed and was eventually sold to Foothills Forest Products Inc. - The Labour Relations Board (Alta.) found that Foothills was a successor employer - The union sought to organize a meeting with its members - The members circulated a petition seeking revocation of the union's bargaining rights and filed a revocation application with the Board - The Board dismissed the union's objections and allowed the revocation application - The applicant applied for judicial review, asserting that the Board erred in concluding that its discretion to deny revocation applications should not be "overused" - The union suggested that this was tantamount to making relief against a revocation application virtually unattainable and was an unreasonable fettering of the Board's discretion under ss. 54(1) of the Labour Relations Code - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court agreed with the Board that a specialized tribunal, in assessing availability of discretionary powers granted to it in its governing legislation, could conclude that it ought to use caution in the exercise of some of these powers, without such an approach leading to the conclusion that the tribunal had fettered its discretion - The Board's approach to the use of its discretion under s. 54(1) did not arise out of a fettering of its discretion - Its decision not to exercise its discretion was predicated upon the Board's weighing of the competing interests involved and its view that, on the facts of this case, the employees' rights were paramount - See paragraphs 40 to 44.

Labour Law - Topic 494

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Duties of board - Revocation of certification or termination of bargaining rights - For almost 20 years, the applicant union had been the bargaining agent for the employees of a sawmill and planar mill owned by Weyerhauser Forest Products Inc. - The mill closed and was eventually sold to Foothills Forest Products Inc.- The Labour Relations Board (Alta.) found that Foothills was a successor employer (successorship decision) - The union sought to organize a meeting with its members - The members circulated a petition seeking revocation of the union's bargaining rights and filed a revocation application with the Board - The Board dismissed the union's objections and allowed the revocation application - The union applied for judicial review, asserting that, because the Board delayed approximately two years in issuing the successorship decision, allowing the revocation application to proceed when it did was unfair and unreasonable - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Board was not only well aware of the delay between the successorship application and the successorship decision, it appreciated the consequences of that delay - The Board did not err - See paragraphs 45 to 52.

Labour Law - Topic 494

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Duties of board - Revocation of certification or termination of bargaining rights - For almost 20 years, the applicant union had been the bargaining agent for the employees of a sawmill and planar mill owned by Weyerhauser Forest Products Inc. - The mill closed and was eventually sold to Foothills Forest Products Inc.- The Labour Relations Board (Alta.) found that Foothills was a successor employer (successorship decision) - The union sought to organize a meeting with its members - The members circulated a petition seeking revocation of the union's bargaining rights and filed a revocation application with the Board - The Board dismissed the union's objections and allowed the revocation application - The union applied for judicial review, asserting that it had attempted to assert its rights through the grievance procedure, but that its efforts were ineffective as Foothills refused to recognize it as the bargaining agent or the collective agreement as binding on it and this amounted to unfair labour practices - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Board found as a fact that there was no unfair labour practice on the part of Foothills and that the workforce was not grossly unrepresentative of what it ought to be - These were matters squarely within the Board's core expertise and it was not unreasonable nor patently unreasonable for the Board to have so concluded - See paragraphs 53 to 56.

Labour Law - Topic 576

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Standard of review - For almost 20 years, the applicant union had been the bargaining agent for the employees of a sawmill and planar mill owned by Weyerhauser Forest Products Inc. - The mill closed and was eventually sold to Foothills Forest Products Inc. - The Labour Relations Board (Alta.) found that Foothills was a successor employer - The union sought to organize a meeting with its members - The members circulated a petition seeking revocation of the union's bargaining rights and filed a revocation application with the Board - The Board dismissed the union's objections and allowed the revocation application - The union applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that applicable standard of review, taking into account the four factors established by the pragmatic and functional approach, and in particular having regard to the long-recognized specialized expertise of the Board and the fact that the issue before it in the application involved the interpretation of a section of the Labour Relations Code and the exercise of a discretion by the Board, was that of patent unreasonableness - See paragraphs 13 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, appld. [para. 13].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 16].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 17].

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 v. Finning International Inc. et al. (2007), 422 A.R. 301; 415 W.A.C. 301; 80 Alta. L.R.(4th) 205; 2007 ABCA 319, refd to. [para. 17].

Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476; 55 N.R. 194, refd to. [para. 21].

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514 v. Prince Rupert Grain Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 432; 198 N.R. 99, refd to. [para. 25].

Alberta v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al. (2002), 293 A.R. 251; 257 W.A.C. 251; 2001 ABCA 299, refd to. [para. 25].

Bennet v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 709; 41 Alta. L.R.(4th) 90; 2004 ABQB 809, refd to. [para. 26].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Provincial Health Authorities (Alta.) et al. (2006), 412 A.R. 148; 404 W.A.C. 148; 2006 ABCA 356, refd to. [para. 32].

Wiebe v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al. (1999), 239 A.R. 127; 1999 ABQB 29, refd to. [para. 35].

Freson Market Ltd., Re, [1997] Alta. L.R.B.R. 252, refd to. [para. 41].

Bosco Homes, A Society for Children and Adolescents, Re, [2001] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-030, refd to. [para. 41].

Toppin v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488, [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 31, refd to. [para. 46].

Counsel:

D.B. Mercer, for the applicant;

Shawn McLeod, for the respondent, Alberta Labour Relations Board;

L.M. Robson, for the respondent, Foothills Forest Products Inc.;

Ian Smith, for the respondent, Certain Employees of Foothills Forest Products Inc.

This application was heard on December 19, 2007, by Shelley, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on February 6, 2008.