Case information

Labour law — Duty of representation — Personal grievance — Appointment of arbitrator — Exception to union monopoly on representation — Jurisdiction of court — Whether application for leave to appeal raises question of public importance — Labour Code, CQLR, c. C 27, ss. 47.2, 47.5 and 100.

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.

In 2020, the applicant, Mr. Boukendour, filed an originating application in which he sought a declaration that his union and his employer had, in bad faith and in a discriminatory manner, interfered with the exercise of his rights under the collective agreement. In the same application, Mr. Boukendour sought an order appointing an arbitrator and awarding moral and exemplary damages against his union and his employer. The employer had concluded that the grievance was out of time and unfounded in fact and in law, and the Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale had refused to appoint an arbitrator. The Superior Court held that the Labour Code gives the Administrative Labour Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to authorize the Minister of Labour to appoint an arbitrator if the Tribunal considers that a certified association has contravened the Code. It also determined that none of the exceptions that allow civil proceedings in the Superior Court applied in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal granted the motions to dismiss Mr. Boukendour’s appeal brought by the employer and the union and dismissed the appeal. In its view, Mr. Boukendour had not raised any error that would warrant appellate intervention, and the appeal therefore had no reasonable chance of success.