Case information

None.

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.

Labour relations Standard of review Sufficiency of reasons Reasonableness Whether the decision of the Board as to the meaning and effect of s. 178 of the Labour Relations Code was reasonable Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing the decision of the Board on the basis that its reasons were insufficient, without inquiring into whether the decision itself fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes.

The appellant, Construction Labour Relations Association (“CLRA”) is an umbrella organization that includes and represents two registered employers’ organizations in Alberta — the Reinforcing Trade Division (“REO”) and the Structural Trade Division (“SEO”). The Respondent, Driver Iron Inc. carries on business in the general construction sector of the construction industry in Alberta and is engaged in and performs reinforcing and structural ironworking. The respondent, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720 (“Local 720”) is a craft union that represents workers engaged in both structural and reinforcing ironwork in Alberta. Local 720 was a party to continuing Registration Collective Agreements with the two employers’ organizations represented by the CLRA. Driver Iron was awarded work on an oil sands project. It was non union but advised Local 720 it would make its best efforts to utilize its members to do the ironwork on the project. Driver Iron would not be unionized and would not agree to the terms of the Registration Collective Agreements. Local 720 and Driver Iron agreed to the terms of a time limited collective agreement. Driver Iron also agreed that the agreement would fall under s. 176(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Code and would not make it an employer under s. 176(1)(a). The agreement was not renewed once it expired. Driver Iron and Local 720 then entered into a new agreement to govern their relationship and agreed that it would not be governed by the Code and would not be enforced by either party as a collective agreement under the Code. The CLRA complained to the Alberta Labour Relations Board (“the Board”) about the agreement and alleged that it violated several provisions of the Code. The CLRA claimed that Local 720 and Driver Iron were not permitted to directly negotiate terms and conditions of employment for Driver Iron’s employees. Only the CLRA could negotiate on behalf of Driver Iron. Driver Iron was also bound by the terms of the Registration Collective Agreements. Driver Iron and Local 720 maintained they could enter into an agreement that governed terms and conditions of employment which were outside the ambit of the Code. The Board declared that Driver Iron was an employer under s. 176(1)(b) of the Code. Pursuant to s. 178 of the Code, it was subject to the terms of the Registration Collective Agreements between the CLRA and Local 720. The application for judicial review was dismissed. It was found that the plain wording of ss. 176(1)(b) and 178 supported the Board’s interpretation that the CLRA was the exclusive bargaining authority on behalf of Driver Iron and that Driver Iron was bound by the Registration Collective Agreements for the duration of its agreement with Local 720. On appeal, the appeal was allowed and the matter returned to the Board for a rehearing.