Driver Iron Inc. v. BSIOW (2012), 539 A.R. 17; 561 W.A.C. 17 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. NO.132
Construction Labour Relations – an Alberta Association (appellant) v. Driver Iron Inc., International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720 and Alberta Labour Relations Board (respondents)
(34205; 2012 SCC 65; 2012 CSC 65)
Indexed As: Driver Iron Inc. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720 et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ.
November 29, 2012.
Summary:
A matter before the Alberta Labour Relations Board concerned the interpretation of ss. 176 and 178 of the Labour Relations Code (Alta.). The Board was asked to decide whether a s. 176(1)(b) employer and a union party to a registered employers’ organization collective agreement (REO CA) governed by Part 3 of the Code could “pick and choose” which of its provisions they wished to adopt, or whether, having agreed to be bound to some of its provisions, they would be bound by the entirety of the REO CA. The Board found that Driver Iron Inc. was a s. 176(1)(b) employer and that it and Local 720 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Union had agreed to adopt some of the provisions of REO CAs to which Local 720 was a party. The Board concluded that s. 178 of the Code rendered Driver Iron bound by all terms and conditions of the REO CAs. Driver Iron applied for judicial review.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, in a decision reported at (2009), 491 A.R. 14, dismissed the application. Driver Iron appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (2011), 502 A.R. 229; 517 W.A.C. 229, allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the Board for a rehearing. Construction Labour Relations – An Alberta Association appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Aberta Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.
Labour Law – Topic 576
Labour relations boards and judicial review – Judicial review – General – Standard of review – [See
Labour Law – Topic 4328
].
Labour Law – Topic 830
Labour relations boards and judicial review – Procedure – Decision – General (incl. sufficiency of) – [See
Labour Law – Topic 4328
].
Labour Law – Topic 4328
Unions – Certification – Employer groups – Registered employers’ organization – Exclusive authority to bargain collectively (incl. parties bound by collective agreement) – A matter before the Alberta Labour Relations Board concerned the interpretation of ss. 176 and 178 of the Labour Relations Code (Alta.) – The Board was asked to decide whether a s. 176(1)(b) employer and a union party to a registered employers’ organization collective agreement (REO CA) governed by Part 3 of the Code could “pick and choose” which of its provisions they wished to adopt, or whether, having agreed to be bound to some of its provisions, they would be bound by the entirety of the REO CA – The Board found that Driver Iron Inc. was a s. 176(1)(b) employer and that it and Local 720 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Union had agreed to adopt some of the provisions of REO CAs to which Local 720 was a party – The Board concluded that s. 178 of the Code rendered Driver Iron bound by all terms and conditions of the REO CAs – Driver Iron applied for judicial review – The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the application, holding that the Board’s decision met the reasonableness standard – Driver Iron appealed – The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board’s decision was unreasonable – The Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal and restored the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench – The Board considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the facts presented to it by the parties – Its interpretation of the Code and its conclusions were reasonable – Its decision was entitled to deference – The Court of Appeal had no valid grounds to review and quash the decision – The Court of Appeal focused on an assertion that the Board had failed to give proper consideration to the interplay between ss. 176(1)(b) and 178 of the Code and to the different meanings that could be ascribed to those provisions and to s. 176(2) – The Board did not have to explicitly address all possible shades of meaning of these provisions – Administrative tribunals did not have to consider and comment upon every issue raised by the parties in their reasons – For reviewing courts, the issue remained whether the decision, viewed as a whole in the context of the record, was reasonable.
Cases Noticed:
Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 3].
Statutes Noticed:
Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1, sect. 176(1)(b), sect. 176(2), sect. 178 [para. 2].
Counsel:
Kent H. Davidson, Q.C., Monique Petrin Nicholson and Gordon Nekolaichuk, for the appellant;
Peter A. Gall, Q.C., Joana Thackeray, Jennifer Klinck and Andrea Zwack, for the respondent, Driver Iron Inc.;
Joanna Gislason, Gary Caroline and Lyndsay Watson, for the respondent, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720;
Shawn W. McLeod, for the respondent, the Alberta Labour Relations Board.
Solicitors of Record:
Miller Thomson, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;
Heenan Blaikie, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Driver Iron Inc.;
Caroline & Gislason, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720;
Alberta Labour Relations Board, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent, the Alberta Labour Relations Board.
This appeal was heard on November 15, 2012, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court delivered the following judgment in both official languages on November 29, 2012.
