Judgment of the Court
ABBOrr J.:-This appeal is from a majority judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench', dated May 14, 1965, confirming a judgment of the Superior Court which had maintained respondent's inscription-in-law and dismissed appellants' petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Respondent Board from exercising jurisdiction accorded it under s. 50 of the Labour Relations Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 162A.
In March 1962, the mis-en-cause applied to the Labour Relations Board (hereinafter called the Board), under the said s. 50, asking that the appellant associations be dissolved on the ground that they had become dominated by employers contrary to the provisions of s. 20 of the Labour Relations Act. It appears that some of the said associations had been incorporated or had applied for incorporation under the Professional Syndicates Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 162. Others appear to be unincorporated groups of the class contemplated by s. 2(d) of the said Act.
On February 19, 1964, shortly before the hearing by the TREMBLAY Board on the said application, the appellants applied for, without prior notice, and obtained from the Superior COMMISSION Court, the issue of a writ of prohibition asking that s. 50 of the Labour Relations Act be declared ultra vires the Quebec Legislature because it purports to confer upon the et at.
Board powers which are exercisable only by a court, the Abbott J. members of which are appointed pursuant to s. 96 of the British North America Act.
On February 25, 1964, the Board filed a total inscription-in-law which was maintained in the Superior Court and by the judgment in the Court below.
Various procedural questions appear to have been argued in the Courts below, in addition to the constitutional one. Before this Court, however, the sole question in issue is whether s. 50 is invalid because it confers upon the Board judicial powers that can be exercised only by a superior, district or county court within the meaning of s. 96 of the British North America Act. The Attorney General for Canada intervened to support the arguments for appellants, and the Attorneys General for Quebec and Ontario to support those for the Board.
Sections 20 and 50 of the Labour Relations Act to which I have referred read as follows:
20. 1o employer, nor person acting for an employer or an association of employers, shall in any manner seek to dominate or hinder the formation or the activities of any association of employees.
No association of employees, nor person acting on behalf of any such association, shall belong to an association of employers or seek to dominate or hinder the formation or the activities of any such association.
50. If it be proved to the Board that an association has participated in an offence against section 20, the Board may, without prejudice to any other penalty, decree the dissolution of such association after giving it an opportunity to be heard and to produce any evidence tending to exculpate it.
In the case of a professional syndicate, an authentic copy of the decision shall be transmitted to the Provincial Secretary who shall give notice thereof in the Quebec Official Gazette.
These two sections have been replaced by ss. 11 and 132 of the new Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 141, which came into force on September 1, 1964. The texts are substantially the same.
The Labour Relations Act and the Professional Syndicates Act are included in a group of statutes enacted by R.C.S.
the Quebec Legislature which, generally speaking, have a common purpose. That purpose is to ensure industrial peace and to establish and protect the right of employers ea. and employees to associate and to bargain collectively.
These are matters which clearly are within the legislative competence of the Province. To administer and enforce the provisions of these labour laws, the Legislature has created a special tribunal-the Labour Relations Board. Similar boards have been set up in other jurisdictions and since the decision of the Judicial Committee in
Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. John East
Iron Works', it is well established that such tribunals may exercise judicial functions as well as purely administrative ones.
As I have said, the narrow question in issue here is whether the Board, in ordering the dissolution of an association which has been given corporate status under the Professional Syndicates Act, is exercising a jurisdiction which belongs exclusively to a s. 96 Court.
The Professional Syndicates Act authorizes groups of employers and employees to form an association or professional syndicate and s. 6 states that such groups shall have as their object "the study, defence and promotion of the economic, social and moral interests of their members".
The Provincial Secretary is empowered, at his discretion, upon compliance with the requirements of the statute, to grant corporate status to such bodies. Their powers, however, are limited and they are subject to the control and supervision of the Provincial Secretary. The status and related privileges are conferred, primarily, for the purpose of promoting employer and employee agreements by the process of collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining becomes meaningless if either of the parties to that process is dominated by the other. For that reason, the Legislature saw fit (1) to enact the prohibition contained in s. 20 and (2) to provide in s. 50 that, in the case of a breach of s. 20, in addition to any other penalty, the Board may order the dissolution of the offending association.
The power given to the Board under s. 50 is a limited and discretionary power. It is purely incidental to the accomplishment of one of the primary purposes for which
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 50 of the Labour Relations Act
- s. 50
- s. 20 of the Labour Relations Act
- s. 2(d)
- s. 96 of the British North America Act
- Sections 20
- 50 of the Labour Relations Act
- section 20
- ss. 11
- 132 of the new Labour Code
- s. 96
- s. 6
- s. 20