Federal appeal | Labour Relations
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Policy substantially and fundamentally different from guidelines
Library was employer under Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (Can.). Library implemented new workforce adjustment (“WFA”) policy after notice to bargain collectively had been given and before arbitral award establishing terms and conditions of employment had been made. Union brought reference to Public Service Labour Relations Board alleging that library violated s. 39 of Act by implementing WFA policy. Board found that redeployment of human resources surplus employees guidelines and WFA policy were terms and conditions of employment that could be embodied in collective agreement as contemplated by s. 39 of Act. Board found that WFA policy substantially and fundamentally altered terms and conditions of employment set out in guidelines and introduction of WFA policy was not result of normal business practice. Board declared that library had violated s. 39 of Act. Library applied for judicial review of board’s decision. Application dismissed. Both guidelines and WFA policy included terms or conditions of employment. Those terms and conditions were not precluded from ever forming part of collective agreement by operation of ss. 5(3) or 55(2) of Act and were consequently contemplated by s. 39 of Act. Board implicitly dealt with s. 5(3) of Act and decision was reasonable even though board did not explicitly refer to s. 5(3). Board reasonably concluded that WFA policy was substantially and fundamentally different from guidelines. Board’s finding of fact that WFA policy was not result of normal business practice was reasonable and was supported by evidence.
CAPE v. Library of Parliament (Oct. 8, 2013, F.C.A., Marc Noël J.A., Eleanor R. Dawson J.A., and Robert M. Mainville J.A., File No. A-119-13) 233 A.C.W.S. (3d) 476.
