T.U.A.C,+loc.+503+v.+Quebec


 * TUAC Local 503 v Quebec (Commission des relations du travail) 2008**

-->**The union made a** **claim** under art. 39 and 45 the //Code de travail// to declare the transfer of rights and obligations from **IGA Drapeau to Sobeys.**
 * Facts :** A company operated IGA Drapeau store which was running into financial trouble. Sobeys became its administrator (legal trust) and took over operation of the business. Sobeys is a wholesaler and granter of the IGA franchise.

Sobeys wanted IGA Drapeau to be renovated and sought for it to be run under the banner of IGA EXTRA. Thus, Sobeys made a contract with Mr. Gagné allowing him to construct an IGA EXTRA store at the other end of the mall – called IGA des Sources.

Sobeys informed the employees of IGA Drapeau of the switch to IGA des Sources, requiring operational changes that would be conveyed to them by the manager. This change required the liquidation of part of the inventory and reduction in employees.
 * -->The union made a claim again** under art. 39 and 45 this time to transfer rights and obligations from **IGA Drapeau to IGA des Sources** for the alienation of the business.


 * Judicial history :** The Labour Commissoner said there was no transfer between IGA Drapeau and IGA des Sources. Commission held the same. The Superior Court allowed the appeal on judicial review, leading to the appeal by IGA des Sources.


 * Issue : Did the certification of the union pass from IGA Drapeau to IGA des sources via Sobeys ?** (As per s.45 of the Code du travail on “Certification not invalidated by sale of an undertaking”) No. **Did the CRT err in their previous decision?** CRT says no (no surprise!)

//First decision of labour commissioner :// -The operation of IGA des Sources was independent from that of IGA Drapeau and there was no alienation or transfer of the business. (former operated under banner of IGA Extra and didn’t acquire anything from IGA Drapeau – not equipment or inventory) -Sobeys, in its capacity as fiduciairy, did not transfer or alienate anything -The respondent started a new business, having contracted with Sobey’s in its second capacity as wholesaler in order to operate under the banner of IGA Extra. //First decision of the Commission des relations du travail//: -It was not an error for the labour commisioner to separate the activities of Sobeys into two distinct entities – that of fiduciary and wholesaler; also not an error to note there was no alienation or transfer of business. **A new business was formed.** //Second decision of labour commission// What TUAC tried to do in its original claim it is now trying to do with two claims but the reasoning is the same: (hence no need to rule on this again) -It was first argued by TUAC that certification pased from IGA Drapeau to IGA des sources via Sobeys. It now says that it passed from IGA Drapeau to Sobeys to IGA des souces. //Second decision of the Commission des relations du travail//: Agrees with Commissioner - obvious that TUAC just wants to reopen an old debate. One difference – CRT focusses more on legal identity rather than physical identity of the businesses. //Judgment of the Superior Court// -The decisions rendered by the CRT and labour commissioner were unreasonable and thus subject to review. They neglected to consider Sobeys in its role as employer. Applied correctness standard to decision of labour commissioner, infirming his decision. Issue is appealed to CRT. -CRT Claims that superior court committed an error itself in concluding that the decisions of the CRT and labour commissioner were unreasonable and therefore subject to judicial review. -The labour commissioner was right to reject TUAC’s demand based on having already received the claim in the earlier decision (principle of chose jugée) and the CRT was right to refuse to revise his decision. The same issue was raised twice. -The labour commissioner scrutinized and established all the facts relevant to Sobeys in relation to IGA Drapeau and all those relevant to Sobeys in relation to IGA des Sources.
 * Reasoning :**
 * Reasoning:**
 * -Application of art. 45 of the Code du travail requires two conditions:**
 * 1. change of employer**
 * 2. continuation of the business under the new employer, a transmission of the business**
 * -TUAC had to establish that between the two successive employers there was the same business – they were unable to do so.**


 * Holding:** Appeal welcomed, reversing decision of superior court.