|
Labour (Fed) - Employee Organizations. Canada (Attorney General) v. Federal Government Dockyards, Trades and Labour Council
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Federal Government Dockyards, Trades and Labour Council (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed a federal Crown-brought labour JR, here brought against a Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board ruling that denied an employer's application "for a declaration that the Council had violated" subsection 194(1) ['Prohibitions Relating to Strikes - Declaration or authorization of strike prohibited'] of the FPSLRA.
The court considers the status of an 'employee organization' (here a 'Council'), in contrast to that of a union:[57] I turn finally to the applicant’s suggestion that the fact that the Council was a council, as opposed to a trade union, was an irrelevant consideration. I disagree in part with this suggestion. As the certified bargaining agent for the DND ship repair employees, the Council is an "“employee organization”" (as trade unions are called in the FPSLRA). By virtue of section 193 of the FPSLRA, acts and omissions of officers and representatives of the Council are deemed to be acts or omissions of the Council. Thus, for the purposes of determining whether subsection 194(1) of the FPSLRA is engaged, the fact that the Council was a council of trade unions is irrelevant.
[58] However, the fact that its constituent union members represent skilled trades employees elsewhere was a factor that was open to the Board to consider in assessing whether statements made by Council officials counselled the ship repair employees to refrain from crossing the PSAC picket lines. Pointing to the impact of being branded as a "“scab”" may well be relevant to whether these statements were an incitement to refuse to cross the PSAC picket lines in solidarity with the striking PSAC employees. Thus, these are facts that the Board could consider.
|
