Case information

Labour relations – Union – Duty of representation – Complaint – In context of complaint concerning lack of union representation, whether court can exclude, without analysis and without justification, ground of discrimination based on labour relations legislation like Labour Code and on human rights legislation like Charter of human rights and freedoms solely because complaint was upheld on basis of another ground, serious negligence – Whether union, whose mission is to represent its members, can act as employer and take on management of conditions of employment, in lieu of said employer, without thereby breaching its duty of fair representation – Whether labour tribunal has jurisdiction to impose remedies relating to these conditions of employment when they are included in union constitution and bylaws – Whether administrative labour tribunal that has upheld in part worker’s complaint for lack of representation can decline to exercise its jurisdiction over future fees that worker will have to incur and can apply per diem scale to future invoices, and whether this decision is reasonable – Labour Code, CQLR, c. C-27, ss. 47.2 and 47.5 – Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C-12, s. 10.

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.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (SEALING ORDER)

The applicant, Bienné Blémur, is a stage rigger for various employers, including the intervener Société du Parc Jean-Drapeau. On July 27, 2018, he filed a complaint under ss. 47.2 et seq. of the Labour Code against his union, the respondent Alliance internationale des employés de scène et théâtre, section locale 56, for breach of its duty of representation. That complaint was made in connection with a process for resolving grievances filed by the union concerning racist comments made by a head grip against Mr. Blémur. The first grievance, for harassment, resulted in an agreement between the parties that was recorded in an arbitration award dated June 9, 2017, and homologated by the Superior Court on July 27, 2017. That agreement provided, among other things, that Mr. Blémur would essentially no longer have to work under the supervision of the head grip in question. The employer acknowledged that racist comments had been made against him. However, shortly after that agreement was entered into, Mr. Blémur was called upon to work under the direction of that head grip, which led to a second grievance being filed in August 2017 for non-compliance with the agreement. A third grievance was filed in August 2018 for psychological harassment because of a second instance of non-compliance with the agreement. That complaint resulted primarily in three decisions by the Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT). The decision dated June 21, 2021, upheld Mr. Blémur’s complaint against the union for serious negligence. After that decision was issued, Mr. Blémur applied for an internal review of the decision under s. 49(3) of the Act to establish the Administrative Labour Tribunal, alleging errors that amounted to substantive defects warranting a partial review. On January 13, 2022, another decision was rendered dismissing that application for review by Mr. Blémur. On June 26, 2024, the ALT rendered a last decision concerning Mr. Blémur’s claims for redress and indemnity. In general terms, the ALT ordered the payment of fees, certain costs and disbursements and part of the moral and punitive damages, and dismissed the claim for indemnities for loss of salary. Mr. Blémur filed an application with the Superior Court for judicial review of the ALT’s three decisions. The union applied for judicial review of the first decision. The Superior Court dismissed both applications for judicial review, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal filed by Mr. Blémur.