La+ville+de+Pointe-Claire+v.+Syndicat+des+employées+et+employés+professionnels-lles+et+de+bureau

Jurisdiction || Supreme Court of Canada; 1997 || Facts || Important to determine the real employer - Ginette Lebeau was assigned to work for the City of Pointe Claire through her temporary agency - City (client) paid the temp agency, who in turn paid Ms. Lebeau; city had no say regarding the amount that Ms. Lebeau got paid - Union wants a declaration that Ms. Lebeau was included in the union’s bargaining unit because she was employed by the City during her two work assignments - Labour Commissioner may decided if a person is an employee or member of an association (s.39 //Labour Code//) – decided in this case to grant the union’s request that Ms. Lebeau be included in the union - Labour Court hears appeals (s.118 //Labour Code//) & has same powers as a labour Commissioner (s.112 //Labour Code//) – Judge Prud’homme stated that it is essential to consider the aspects of an employee-employer relationship: the establishment of working conditions and the supervision of the performance of work (not just paying an employee) – decided that the City was in fact Ms. Lebeau’s employer within the meaning and for the purposes of the Labour Code || Issue(s) || Whether the Labour Court’s decision was patently unreasonable? || Holding || No || Ratio || ONLY issue here is whether the Labour Court made a patently unreasonable error by holding, in the context of a request under s.39 of the //Labour Code//, that the City was Ms. Lebeau’s employer during her two work assignments (although it is interesting that the issue of whether temporary employees engaged by a business through a personnel agency can in some cases be included in the bargaining unit of the union that represents the business’ permanent employees, or whether they are employees of the agency)
 * //Pointe-Claire (Ville) c. S.E.P.B., Local 57//**
 * Majority (Lamer C.J.C, La Forest, Gonthier and Cory JJ):**

Employer-employee relationship defined by 3 essential elements: s. 1(k) of //Labour Code:// (1) the performance of work (2) remuneration (3) legal subordination of the employee to the employer [para. 33]

Over the past 25 years, the Labour Court has applied this test to determine who the employer is in a tripartite relationship: Criterion is **legal subordination,** notion that encompasses actual control by a party over the employee’s day-to-day work - only case where Labour Court ruled differently was in //Centre d’accueil Mgr **Coderre** c. U.E.S. local 298//, personnel agency should be considered the employer within the meaning of the //Labour Code,// criterion of legal subordination not appropriate; rather, integration into the business should be preferred - //Hopital Royal Victoria c. Infirmieres & infirmiers unis Inc.// also shows a shift in this direction – Superior Court stated that it was patently unreasonable to identify the real employer by relying solely or predominantly on the legal subordination test – need for more **balanced approach**, including factors like recruitment, selection, training, remuneration and discipline, integration into the business, continuity of employment and the employment’s sense of belonging Lamer: in context of tripartite relationship, flexible approach has the advantage of allowing for a consideration of which party has the most control over all aspects of the work on the specific facts of each case – essential that temporary employees be able to bargain with the party that exercises the greatest control over all aspects [para. 48] - essential test: fundamental control over working conditions (Canadian jurisprudence), found that in tripartite relationships, the client is the temporary employee’s real employer

The //Labour Code// does not specify who must pay the employee [para 55]. The source of remuneration is **not** conclusive in determining/identifying the employer Therefore, the Labour Court’s reasoning is not patently unreasonable and the collective agreement would have applied to Ms. Lebeau during the two work assignments in question and she is entitled to receive the difference in wages - no inconsistency between an //Act respecting labour standards// and the //Labour Code// - it is natural that the labour legislation designed to govern bipartite labour situations must be adjusted in some way - court must fill in the **legislative gaps**

The //Labour Code// extends the scope of legal rights and obligations in a collective agreement beyond the parties who have signed it - the scope of the collective agreement does not extend, however, to individuals who are not originally mentioned or contemplated in the bargaining unit description - neither the Union nor the City ever contemplated that the agreement would extend to employees of agency – Union seeking to add parties to the collective agreement who were never intended to be covered
 * Dissent: L’Heureux-Dube J.**

Central **issue** for the Labour Court was one of **statutory interpretation** - modern rule in statutory interpretation: contextual, must have regard to purpose of legislation, consequences of proposed interpretation, special rules of interpretation - court must adopt interpretation that is appropriate, with the outcome reasonable and just [para 87] - absurd interpretation synonymous with extreme unreasonableness: absurd because they involve unworkable and/ or impracticable results, anomalies and irrationalities - this is what will happen if the appeal is dismissed: the Quebec Code was clearly devised to identify the employee on the basis of a bipartite contractual relationship, not a tripartite [para 102] - establishment of 2 simultaneous employers is an ambiguous indicator of the actual legal power [para 129] - para.’s 132-143 discuss the irrationalities of the application

There is absolutely no legal link of a contractual nature between the employee of the agency and the client - client is stranger to the negotiations between the agency and an employee while the employee is stranger to those between the agency and the client - //de facto// / fundamental control in no way creates a legal link of a contractual nature between the two parties. It simply indicates the intensity of the //de facto// subordination created by the legal obligations to which the two parties have agreed [para 106]

L’Heureux Dube advocates for the approach taken in **//Coderre//** – that the legal status of employees is the most important, not the legal subordination of the employees [para 112] - seeking a more global test designed to determine whether the employee is sufficiently subordinate in the //de facto sense//, which is not the issue here, but //who// the //real// employer is, which is the central question [para. 115] majority = unreasonable and absurd result ||