The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50811
between Ottawa and Montreal. Today Fastfrate's employees do not cross prov- incial borders. The union representing the Fastfrate workers applied to the Alberta Labour Relations Board for a declaration of whether the operations of the Calgary branch were subject to provincial or federal regulations. There was an ear- lier application to the Canada Industrial Relations Board from another union ask- ing to have the Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba divisions certified as a regional bargaining unit. The ALRB sided with the union representing the Calgary workers, say- ing the company was "subject to fed- eral jurisdiction because it was part of a single, indivisible, interprovincial freight transportation undertaking." The reviewing judge, who reaffirmed the existing provincial certification, struck down the decision, "holding that absent any physical involvement in the inter- provincial carriage of goods, there was 'insufficient reason to displace the dom- inant presumption of provincial jurisdic- tion over labour relations.'" However, the Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, restored the ALRB ruling. "This case went back and forth and back and forth at each level," says Tom Ross, the McLennan Ross LLP partner in Calgary who represented Fastfrate at the Supreme Court. The case even- tually hinged on the purpose of the company's operations versus the prac- tice of its workers. "One of the keys to the decision here is in order to have interprovincial transportation you must be involved in the physical transpor- tation across provincial boundaries." While Fastfrate's operations are inter- provincial in the sense that the company Find the following cases online: Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia: scc.lexum.umon- treal.ca/en/2007/2007scc27/2007scc27.html. Fraser v. Ontario: www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ decisions/2008/november/2008ONCA0760.pdf. Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters http://csc.lexum.umon- treal.ca/en/2009/2009scc53/2009scc53.html. A balanced approach recognizes that learning is a two-way street. The most productive relationships are born of mutual understanding. That's why we're as committed to learning about a client's business as we are to helping clients understand the intricacies of labour law. moves freight from one part of Canada to another, none of its employees are involved in moving the freight across provincial boundaries. "All of the employees and their indi- vidual activities were self-contained in each province," says Ross. This pro- vides an easier test for courts and labour boards, basing a decision on where the employees' operations occur, rather than the purpose of the business when decid- ing whether those workers should be cov- ered by federal or provincial labour rules. "Especially in today's business world, it is hard to find a business that doesn't have some purpose extending beyond its own province." One of the reasons the court ruled in favour of Fastfrate was the company had arranged itself in a legitimate fashion, and not simply to avoid the national labour law. However, Craig says the ruling's minority opinion Toronto 416.408.3221 I London 519.433.7270 I filion.on.ca www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com FEBRU AR Y 2010 43 lion_CL_Feb_09.indd 1 1/20/09 3:48:02 PM