Docket: A-57-22
Citation: 2023 FCA 251
CORAM:
|
GLEASON J.A.
LEBLANC J.A.
HECKMAN J.A.
|
||
|
BETWEEN: |
|
|
|
MICHAEL DAVID SIELUZYCKI |
|
|
|
Applicant |
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED and UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 175 |
|
|
|
Respondents |
|
|
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on December 19, 2023.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 21, 2023.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: |
GLEASON J.A. |
CONCURRED IN BY: |
LEBLANC J.A. HECKMAN J.A. |
Date: 20231221
Docket: A-57-22
Citation: 2023 FCA 251
CORAM:
|
GLEASON J.A.
LEBLANC J.A.
HECKMAN J.A.
|
||
|
BETWEEN: |
|
|
|
MICHAEL DAVID SIELUZYCKI |
|
|
|
Applicant |
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED and UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 175 |
|
|
|
Respondents |
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GLEASON J.A.
[1] The applicant seeks to set aside the letter decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) issued November 17, 2021 in 2021 CIRB LD 4591. In that decision, a Vice-Chairperson of the CIRB dismissed a reconsideration application that sought to set aside the refusal of the CIRB’s Registrar to process the applicant’s duty of fair representation and unfair labour practice complaints. Both the Registrar and the Vice-Chairperson concluded that the CIRB had no jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaints, which arose from circumstances surrounding the applicant’s job applications for position(s) with the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Canada (Coca-Cola).
[2] I see no reviewable error in the CIRB’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction. The labour relations of Coca-Cola do not fall within the competence of Parliament but are rather subject to provincial regulation.
[3] Labour relations in most industries are a matter of provincial competence, as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council confirmed nearly a hundred years ago in what has been called the Labour Conventions case, Canada (AG) v. Ontario (AG) [1937] UKPC 6, [1937] A.C. 326.
[4] By way of exception, Parliament has jurisdiction over the labour relations of employees who work in federal works, undertakings, or businesses, as the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in the case commonly known as the Stevedoring Reference, Validity and Applicability of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, 1955 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1955] SCR 529.
[5] The Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 governs which works, undertakings, or businesses are federal in nature. Section 2 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 (the Code) provides a useful listing of those works, undertakings, or businesses that are subject to federal regulation. Section 2 defines a federal work, undertaking, or business as meaning:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[6] It is the nature of the employer’s core business that is considered in characterizing its business or undertaking for constitutional purposes: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1948 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1948] SCR 373. Thus, the fact that a manufacturing business employs a driver who makes deliveries outside the province does not transform the undertaking into a federal one.
[7] The contents of any collective agreement applicable to an employer and its employees is not relevant to determining whether the Code applies to them. It is rather the nature of the employer’s core business that governs. Thus, contrary to what the applicant submitted, it is not necessary to review the collective agreement applicable to the respondents to determine if the CIRB had jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaints.
[8] Nor do the Motor Vehicle Operators Hours of Work Regulations, C.R.C., c. 990 provide a basis for federal jurisdiction in this case. As explained to the applicant during the hearing, those regulations only apply to drivers whose employers are subject to federal regulation, such as interprovincial transportation companies. There are provincial regulations and legislation that apply to drivers who are employed by businesses, like Coca-Cola, whose labour relations are subject to provincial regulation.
[9] Thus, the CIRB did not err in finding it had no jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaints. I would accordingly dismiss this application.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
“I agree. |
René LeBlanc J.A.” |
“I agree. |
Gerald Heckman J.A.” |
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket: |
A-57-22 |
||
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
MICHAEL DAVID SIELUZYCKI v. COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED AND UNITED FOOD and COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 175 |
|
|
PLACE OF HEARING:
|
Montréal, Quebec |
||
DATE OF HEARING:
|
December 19, 2023 |
||
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
GLEASON J.A. |
||
CONCURRED IN BY:
|
LEBLANC J.A. HECKMAN J.A. |
||
DATED:
|
DECEMBER 21, 2023 |
||
APPEARANCES:
Michael David Sieluzycki |
ON HIS OWN BEHALF |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lavery, de Billy L.L.P. Montréal, Quebec |
For The Respondents COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED |