McIntyre+c.+I.A.M

McIntyre – Appellant, plaintiff International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers **Facts:** For 17 years, the appellant was an employee of Air Canada and of the District Lodge 140 (the Union) affiliated with the IAM (international association). For the latter, he was the secretary treasurer. In the context of financial restructuring and the possible sale of Air Canada, negotiations took place between certain representatives of the union and those of Air Canada, particularly regarding the retirement provisions of Air Canada employees. Union officials were not authorized to lead such negotiations – the IAM dismissed the appellant and 27 other union officials. The appellant was dismissed from his union job and returned to Air Canada without any loss of salary. **Issue:** Was the appellant’s action against the Union, his ex-employer, governed by art. 94 and 95 of the //Canada// //Labour Code// (CCT)? **Yes.** If yes, it is understood that the //Canada Labour Relations Board// Conseil candien des relations industrielles (CCRI) would be responsible for the lawsuit? **Yes.** **Reasoning:** (Rayle JCA) **-**The appellant puts forth that he is an employee of the union and is consequently governed by the laws of Quebec and not by the //Canada Labour Code//, meaning that the superior court has the competence for the appellant’s claim in damages for unjust dismissal. Rayle: it is not so simple. -Labour relations are a question of civil law falling to the provinces. Labour relations pertaining to a business that has a federal objective pertain to federal competence because they constitute an essential aspect in the management of the business. -Air Canada is a federal business in the sense of art. 2 of the CCT, esp. 2 (e) airports. -Unions that represent employees of federal businessese are not themselves federal operations. That said, they are subject to certain provisions of the CCT, notably if reference to abusive practices against their members. The conduct of a union is governed by art. 95 which forbids a union from f) dismissing an employee of the union in treating him in a discriminatory manner and g) from taking disciplinary measures against an employee in applying the rules of the union in a discriminatory manner. -The application of discriminatory practices against one of its members on the part of the union constitutes a failure of its charge to justly represent its members and would be subjected to the oversight of the Labour Relations Board. Three types of employees: -1. employees who are directly hired by a union and have no line of subordination or employment with a federal business itself: these people are governed by the provincial labour code. -2. employees who are directly hired by a federal business but are not employed by their union -3. Intermediary zone: employees who have a hybrid status. As employees of a federal business (like Air Canada), they are elected to certain union posts. This type of arrangement stems from the right of an employee to occupy certain union posts without losing the rights acquired under their initial employer, the federal business (a right recognized by the //Canada Labour Code//). -Although McIntyre received only half of his salary from the union, his salary was paid by union-issued cheques. The union is recognized under the Quebec Labour Code as a collective bargaining unit in Quebec. -However, McIntyre was initially an employee of Air Canada and he still is. Half of his previous salary came from Air Canada. -Jurisprudence has always considered that employment could exist even in the absence of remuneration. It is for this reason that a worker on a non-rumunerated but authorized leave of absence would simply have his contract suspended rather than broken. -Throughout the years in which the appellant benefited from an authorized absence from his Air Canada job, his link of employment with Air Canada was still maintained. -The respondents were accused of a discriminatory comportment contrary to s.95 which they denied. -S.95 on the conduct of a federal union must be given a broad interpretation. It is not only a corrective measure but has the intention of avoiding overloading the court system. Parliament created a specialized agency, the //Labour Relations Board//, to deal with such issues. -The plaintiff was viewed as a political threat within the union (opposed the election of the General Vice President Mr. Ritchie and suspected of supporting Mr. Jallet ) -The plaintiff may have been a victim of a distinct and abusive treatment for reasons that were illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable (discrimination) but these practices are governed by the //Canada Labour Code// and subjected to the authority of the //Labour Relations Board// (not the court). **Holding:** The motion by the respondents of irreceivability of the claim against the competence of the superior court must be retained and the claim for damages by the appellant rejected ? Treatment that is illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable such as dismissal for political motivations can constitute discrimination. Type in the content of your page here.
 * McIntyre c. I.A.M. & A.W.** *2007 *Quebec Court of Appeal