Schrager, Mainville, Hamilton

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT). Dismissed.

The impleaded union filed a petition for certification with respect to the respondent’s agri-food inspectors and classification officers working in grain terminals at six ports in Quebec. The ALT refused the petition after finding that the branch at issue is a separate business and that the employees concerned engage in operations that fall within derivative federal jurisdiction. The trial judge found that the ALT erred in concluding that it is included in several federal undertakings rather than just one. The judge nonetheless found that the constitutional test was met with respect to the branch’s inclusion in the client federal undertaking at the port of Montreal, even though the respondent also provided services to other federal undertakings.

The appellant and the union submit that the ALT erred in concluding that the branch covered by the petition for certification is a separate business of the respondent for the purposes of the constitutional analysis. The evidence establishes, however, that the branch’s operations, devoted to grain and grain port elevator services, were separate and independent from the respondent’s other operations.

Because the respondent relied on both direct and indirect federal jurisdiction, it was up to the judge to determine, based on the standard of correctness, whether the ALT’s conclusions in both cases were valid. Since R. v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co. (S.C. Can., 1925-05-05), [1925] S.C.R. 434, and the enactment of the Canada Grain Act (S.C. 1925, c. 33), in 1925, direct federal jurisdiction over grain elevators and over the businesses and individuals who work there is undisputed. The case law establishes that this exclusive federal jurisdiction also includes exclusive jurisdiction over labour relations with respect to those who work at grain elevators to carry out work or operations that are functionally necessary and essential to these elevator operations, in accordance with the Act. These activities include grain sampling, weighing, classification, inspection, and certification at elevators in Canadian ports, as well as the fumigation and cleaning of these elevators and ships transporting the grain. This describes all the operations performed by employees at the respondent’s independent branch covered by the petition for certification. These employees therefore fall under direct federal jurisdiction with respect to labour relations because their operations are fully integrated into those of grain elevators.

According to Madysta Télécom ltée c. Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (C.A., 2020-02-03 (judgment corrected on 2020-02-05)), 2020 QCCA 183, SOQUIJ AZ-51665638, 2020EXPT-357, even when there are several principal federal undertakings, the doctrine of derivative federal jurisdiction may still apply provided a separate business can be identified. In this case, the evidence established that the federal undertaking at the port of Montreal plays a major role in the operations at the respondent’s branch and that its employees work steadily for this business. Thus, although the Court is of the view that direct federal jurisdiction applies and that the ALT erred in concluding to the contrary, it finds that derivative federal jurisdiction also leads to the conclusion that the ALT lacked constitutional jurisdiction over the petition for certification.

Text of the decision: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca