A-933-77
CKCV (Québec) Limitée (Applicant)
v.
Canada Labour Relations Board (Respondent)
and
National Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians, AFL-CIO-CLC and Sonia Labrecque
(Mis -en-cause)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Montreal, September 18, 1978.
Judicial review — Labour relations — Canada Labour
Relations Board decision — Applicant argued that Board's
decision in effect certified mis -en-cause Union as bargaining
agent for new, hitherto unrepresented employees, without first
ascertaining if new group wanted representation by the Union
— Also argued that Board failed to determine if group an
appropriate bargaining unit — Objections made to inclusion of
free-lancers and independent contractors in the unit —
Application dismissed — Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970,
c. L-1, s. 119 — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.),
c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
S. Thibaudeau for applicant.
F. Mercier, Q.C. for respondent.
A. Joli-Cceur for mis -en-cause, National
Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians.
SOLICITORS:
Johnston, Heenan & Blaikie, Montreal, for
applicant.
Stikeman, Elliott, Tamaki, Mercier & Robb,
Montreal, for respondent.
Joli-Cceur & Mathieu, Sillery, for mis -en-
cause, National Association of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: Applicant is challenging a decision
of the Canada Labour Relations Board which
amended the wording of the certificate of certifica
tion of the mis -en-cause Union.
In the submission of applicant, by arriving at
this decision the Board has in fact certified the
mis -en-cause Union as the bargaining agent for a
new, hitherto unrepresented group of employees,
and it contends that the Board could not do this
without first making certain that a majority of this
new group actually wanted to be represented by
the Union.
Even assuming that, when it has before it an
application for certification disguised as an
application for review, the Board is required to
proceed as applicant suggests, its argument must
be rejected, in the opinion of this Court. It was not
established that in the case at bar the Board was
wrong in considering, first, that the application
before it in accordance with section 119 of the
Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1, was a
genuine application for review, and secondly, that
the order it was preparing to make did not amend
the nature and scope of the bargaining unit.
It was further argued that the Board failed to
determine that this was an appropriate bargaining
unit. Even admitting for purposes of discussion
that the Board was obliged to do so, this argument
does not hold since, in its decision, the Board
expressly stated that the bargaining unit was an
appropriate one.
Finally, applicant objected to the inclusion of
independent contractors, free-lancers, in the unit.
However, the arguments submitted on this point
did not persuade the Court that the Board had
made an error on this point justifying its
intervention.
For these reasons, the application will be
dismissed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.