Case information

Administrative law ? Boards and tribunals ? Natural justice ? Standard of review ? Jurisdiction ? Motion by employer to have petition for certification found inadmissible because filed within three months of withdrawal of first petition for certification ? Admissibility of evidence filed by employer ? Evidence relating to employees’ union membership or representative nature of association ? Standard of review for decisions ruling on issues of procedural fairness or natural justice, and whether standard should be adjusted where decision involves interpretation of administrative decision-maker’s home statute ? Whether determination of petitioner’s status by administrative decision-maker raises jurisdictional issue subject to correctness standard where that determination governs decision-maker’s power to deal with issue ? Proper definition of concept of “representative nature” in s. 32 of Labour Code and extent to which confidentiality associated therewith can justify restricting employer’s right to be heard ? Labour Code, CQLR c. C 27, ss. 27.1, 32, 36 and 40.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants, Les Systèmes Techno-Pompes inc. and Les Systèmes Géothermiques Jean-Guy Samson inc., a single employer under the union certification process set out in the Labour Code, CQLR c. C 27, filed a motion under the Code to have the petition for union certification filed by the respondent, Les Travailleurs et Travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce, section locale 503, found inadmissible on the basis that it had been filed shortly after a petition for union certification for the same group of employees was withdrawn by Les Travailleurs et Travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce, section locale 509. The applicants therefore argued that there was an unlawful scheme between the two unions, which were actually a single entity. To prove the existence of the scheme, the applicants served summonses on the union representatives in order to obtain documents and union resolutions concerning the two petitions for certification. The Commission des relations de travail did not accept that evidence on the ground that it contained information about union membership the confidentiality of which was protected by the Labour Code. The applicants applied for judicial review of that tribunal decision.