International Longshore and Warehouse Union - Canada v. British Columbia Maritime Employers Association

International Longshore and Warehouse Union - Canada v. British Columbia Maritime Employers Association
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2024-09-13
Neutral citation
2024 FCA 142
File numbers
A-186-23
Decision Content
Date: 20240913
Docket: A-186-23
Citation: 2024 FCA 142
CORAM:
GLEASON J.A.
BIRINGER J.A.
WALKER J.A.
BETWEEN:
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION – CANADA
Applicant
and
BRITISH COLUMBIA MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 13, 2024.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 13, 2024.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
GLEASON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
BIRINGER J.A. WALKER J.A.
Date: 20240913
Docket: A-186-23
Citation: 2024 FCA 142
CORAM:
GLEASON J.A.
BIRINGER J.A.
WALKER J.A.
BETWEEN:
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION – CANADA
Applicant
and
BRITISH COLUMBIA MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GLEASON J.A.
[1] The applicant, International Longshore and Warehouse Union–Canada (ILWU Canada), is the bargaining agent for approximately 7400 longshore employees who work in various ports in British Columbia, including the Port of Vancouver. The respondent, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (the BCMEA), is the non-accredited bargaining agent for employers involved in national and international marine transportation on Canada’s west coast. ILWU Canada and the BCMEA bargain collectively with each other, primarily under long–standing voluntary recognition agreements, to settle the terms and conditions of employment for almost all of the longshore employees who work in various ports in British Columbia. A single industry–wide collective agreement applies to the employees for whom the BCMEA and ILWU Canada collectively bargain.
[2] ILWU Canada applied to this Court to set aside Order No.: 1460-NB of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the CIRB or the Board), issued on July 19, 2023 (the Order). The Board delivered reasons for the Order on August 10, 2023, in British Columbia Maritime Employers Association v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union-Canada, 2023 CIRB 1088.
[3] In the Order, the CIRB declared that ILWU Canada engaged in an unlawful strike when it resumed its strike activities on July 18, 2023. The strike activities resumed shortly after ILWU Canada’s Longshore Contract Caucus (an internal union committee) rejected a recommendation for settlement of the renewal collective agreement between the parties (the Terms of Settlement). Both parties’ bargaining committees had agreed to present the Terms of Settlement for ratification. At the request of the Federal Minister of Labour, ILWU Canada stopped strike activities while considering the Terms of Settlement. When the Longshore Contract Caucus rejected the Terms of Settlement, ILWU Canada and its members raised their picket lines and recommenced strike activities on July 18, 2023, providing approximately an hour and a half notice of their intention to do so.
[4] The CIRB determined that, in the particular circumstances at issue, ILWU Canada was required to give the BCMEA a new 72–hour strike notice, under paragraph 89(1)(f) and subsection 87.2(1) of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 [Code] before resuming strike activities. Because no such notice was given, the Board declared the strike illegal and, among other things, ordered that all strike activities cease until a new 72–hour strike notice was given to the BCMEA.
[5] Not long after this application for judicial review was filed, ILWU Canada and the BCMEA settled their collective agreement.
[6] The Court sent a Direction to the parties, requesting that they be prepared to address at the outset of the hearing whether this application was moot due to the settlement of the collective agreement, and, if so, whether the Court should nonetheless exercise its discretion to hear this application. During the hearing before this Court, the panel heard the parties’ submissions on mootness and took the mootness issues under reserve. We then proceeded to hear the parties’ submissions on the merits of the application.
[7] The following reasons deal with both the mootness issues and the merits of the application.
[8] For the reasons that follow, I would find that this application is moot because the substratum of the litigation disappeared once ILWU Canada members returned to work. Despite this finding, I would nonetheless exercise the Court’s discretion to decide this application because its determination may well have a practical effect on outstanding or contemplated litigation between the parties, as both parties submitted. On the merits, I would find that the CIRB did not violate ILWU Canada’s right to procedural fairness and that the Board’s decision is reasonable. I would therefore dismiss this application. I would make no order regarding costs because the parties have settled the issue of costs between them and have agreed that a costs order is not required.
I. The Relevant Provisions in the Canada Labour Code
[9] I commence by outlining the statutory and regulatory provisions that are relevant to this application.
[10] Part I of the Code, among other things, provides for the acquisition of unions’ representational rights in the federal private sector and regulates collective bargaining in that sector. Like all labour legislation in Canada, Part I of the Code is modelled on the American National Labor Relations Act, 29 USC §151-169 (1935) [Wagner Act]. Under the Wagner Act model, a compromise regarding industrial conflict exists: strikes and lockouts are prohibited during the currency of a collective agreement but are allowed when a collective agreement is not in force and certain pre-conditions to the exercise of the right to strike or lockout are met.
[11] Section 3 of the Code defines strike and lockout in the following non-limiting terms:
strike includes a cessation of work or a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees, in combination, in concert or in accordance with a common understanding, and a slowdown of work or other concerted activity on the part of employees in relation to their work that is designed to restrict or limit output; (grève)
grève S’entend notamment d’un arrêt du travail ou du refus de travailler, par des employés agissant conjointement, de concert ou de connivence; lui sont assimilés le ralentissement du travail ou toute autre activité concertée, de la part des employés, ayant pour objet la diminution ou la limitation du rendement et relative au travail de ceux-ci. (strike)
lockout includes the closing of a place of employment, a suspension of work by an employer or a refusal by an employer to continue to employ a number of their employees, done to compel their employees, or to aid another employer to compel that other employer’s employees, to agree to terms or conditions of employment; (lock-out)
lock-out S’entend notamment d’une mesure — fermeture du lieu de travail, suspension du travail ou refus de continuer à employer un certain nombre des employés — prise par l’employeur pour contraindre ses employés, ou aider un autre employeur à contraindre ses employés, à accepter des conditions d’emploi. (lockout)
[12] Section 91 of the Code provides for applications to the Board for illegal strike declarations and ancillary orders. It reads as follows:
Employer may apply for declaration that strike unlawful
Demande de déclaration d’illégalité d’une grève
91(1) Where an employer alleges that a trade union has declared or authorized a strike, or that employees have participated, are participating or are likely to participate in a strike, the effect of which was, is or would be to involve the participation of an employee in a strike in contravention of this Part, the employer may apply to the Board for a declaration that the strike was, is or would be unlawful.
91(1) S’il estime soit qu’un syndicat a déclaré ou autorisé une grève qui a eu, a ou aurait pour effet de placer un employé en situation de contravention à la présente partie, soit que des employés ont participé, participent ou participeront vraisemblablement à une telle grève, l’employeur peut demander au Conseil de déclarer la grève illégale.
Declaration that strike unlawful and strike prohibited
Déclaration d’illégalité
(2) Where an employer applies to the Board under subsection (1) for a declaration that a strike was, is or would be unlawful, the Board may, after affording the trade union or employees referred to in subsection (1) an opportunity to make representations on the application, make such a declaration and, if the employer so requests, may make an order
(2) Saisi de la demande visée au paragraphe (1), le Conseil peut, après avoir donné au syndicat ou aux employés la possibilité de présenter des arguments, déclarer la grève illégale et, à la demande de l’employeur, rendre une ordonnance pour :
(a) requiring the trade union to revoke the declaration or authorization to strike and to give notice of such revocation forthwith to the employees to whom it was directed;
a) enjoindre au syndicat d’annuler sa décision de déclarer ou d’autoriser une grève, et d’en informer immédiatement les employés concernés;
(b) enjoining any employee from participating in the strike;
b) interdire à tout employé de participer à la grève;
(c) requiring any employee who is participating in the strike to perform the duties of their employment; and
c) ordonner à tout employé qui participe à la grève de reprendre son travail;
(d) requiring any trade union, of which any employee with respect to whom an order is made under paragraph (b) or (c) is a member, and any officer or representative of that union, forthwith to give notice of any order made under paragraph (b) or (c) to any employee to whom it applies.
d) sommer tout syndicat dont font partie les employés touchés par l’ordonnance visée aux alinéas b) ou c), ainsi que les dirigeants ou représentants du syndicat, de porter immédiatement cette ordonnance à la connaissance des intéressés.
[13] Section 88.1 of the Code prohibits strikes or lockouts until the requirements of subsection 89(1) of the Code are met. Section 89 of the Code provides as follows:
No strike or lockout until certain requirements met
Conditions relatives aux grèves et lock-out
89(1) No employer shall declare or cause a lockout and no trade union shall declare or authorize a strike unless
89(1) Il est interdit à l’employeur de déclarer ou de provoquer un lock-out et au syndicat de déclarer ou d’autoriser une grève si les conditions suivantes ne sont pas remplies :
(a) the employer or trade union has given notice to bargain collectively under this Part;
a) l’un ou l’autre a adressé un avis de négociation collective en application de la présente partie;
(b) the employer and the trade union
b) les deux :
(i) have failed to bargain collectively within the period specified in paragraph 50(a), or
(i) soit n’ont pas négocié collectivement dans le délai spécifié à l’alinéa 50a),
(ii) have bargained collectively in accordance with section 50 but have failed to enter into or revise a collective agreement;
(ii) soit ont négocié collectivement conformément à l’article 50, sans parvenir à conclure ou réviser la convention collective;
(c) the Minister has
c) le ministre a :
(i) received a notice, given under section 71 by either party to the dispute, informing the Minister of the failure of the parties to enter into or revise a collective agreement, or
(i) soit reçu l’avis mentionné à l’article 71 et l’informant que les parties n’ont pas réussi à conclure ou à réviser la convention collective,
(ii) taken action under subsection 72(2);
(ii) soit pris l’une des mesures prévues par le paragraphe 72(2);
(d) twenty-one days have elapsed after the date on which the Minister
d) vingt et un jours se sont écoulés depuis la date à laquelle le ministre, selon le cas :
(i) notified the parties of the intention not to appoint a conciliation officer or conciliation commissioner, or to establish a conciliation board under subsection 72(1),
(i) a notifié aux termes du paragraphe 72(1) son intention de ne pas nommer de conciliateur ou de commissaire-conciliateur, ni de constituer de commission de conciliation,
(ii) notified the parties that a conciliation officer appointed under subsection 72(1) has reported,
(ii) a notifié aux parties le fait que le conciliateur nommé aux termes du paragraphe 72(1) lui a fait rapport des résultats de son intervention,
(iii) released a copy of the report to the parties to the dispute pursuant to paragraph 77(a), or
(iii) a mis à la disposition des parties, conformément à l’alinéa 77a), une copie du rapport qui lui a été remis,
(iv) is deemed to have been reported to pursuant to subsection 75(2) or to have received the report pursuant to subsection 75(3);
(iv) est réputé avoir été informé par le conciliateur des résultats de son intervention, en application du paragraphe 75(2), ou avoir reçu le rapport, en application du paragraphe 75(3);
(e) the Board has determined any application made pursuant to subsection 87.4(4) or any referral made pursuant to subsection 87.4(5); and
e) le Conseil a tranché une demande présentée en vertu du paragraphe 87.4(4) ou a statué sur un renvoi fait en vertu du paragraphe 87.4(5);
(f) sections 87.2 and 87.3 have been complied with.
f) les conditions prévues aux articles 87.2 et 87.3 ont été remplies.
No employee to strike until certain requirements met
Participation d’employés à une grève
(2) No employee shall participate in a strike unless
(2) Il est interdit à l’employé de participer à une grève sauf si :
(a) the employee is a member of a bargaining unit in respect of which a notice to bargain collectively has been given under this Part; and
a) d’une part, il est membre d’une unité de négociation pour laquelle un avis de négociation collective a été adressé en vertu de la présente partie;
(b) the requirements of subsection (1) have been met in respect of the bargaining unit of which the employee is a member.
b) d’autre part, les conditions énoncées au paragraphe (1) ont été remplies pour cette unité de négociation.
[14] The provisions referred to in subsection 89(1) of the Code that govern conciliation (which is one of the pre-conditions to acquisition of the right to strike or lockout) are set out in the Appendix to these reasons. Also included in the Appendix are sections 105 and 107 of the Code, which provide the Federal Minister of Labour certain powers to promote industrial peace, and section 87.7 of the Code, which, among other things, prohibits strike action for those servicing grain vessels.
[15] Section 87.2 of the Code, which is referred to in paragraph 89(1)(f), contains requirements for a 72–hour notice to an employer of an impending strike and for a similar notice to a union of an impending lockout. In accordance with paragraph 89(1)(f) of the Code, compliance with the notice provisions in section 87.2 of the Code is a pre-condition for acquisition of the right to strike or lockout under the Code. Section 87.2 of the Code is of central importance to this application. It reads as follows:
Strike notice
Préavis de grève
87.2(1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has occurred, a trade union must give notice to the employer, at least seventy-two hours in advance, indicating the date on which a strike will occur, and must provide a copy of the notice to the Minister.
87.2(1) Sauf si un lock-out non interdit par la présente partie a été déclenché, le syndicat est tenu de donner un préavis d’au moins soixante-douze heures à l’employeur pour l’informer de la date à laquelle la grève sera déclenchée; il est également tenu de faire parvenir une copie du préavis au ministre.
Lockout notice
Préavis de lock-out
(2) Unless a strike not prohibited by this Part has occurred, an employer must give notice to the trade union, at least seventy-two hours in advance, indicating the date on which a lockout will occur, and must provide a copy of the notice to the Minister.
(2) Sauf si une grève non interdite par la présente partie a été déclenchée, l’employeur est tenu de donner un préavis d’au moins soixante-douze heures au syndicat pour l’informer de la date à laquelle le lock-out sera déclenché; il est également tenu de faire parvenir une copie du préavis au ministre.
New notice
Nouveau préavis
(3) Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, where no strike or lockout occurs on the date indicated in a notice given pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), a new notice of at least seventy-two hours must be given by the trade union or the employer if they wish to initiate a strike or lockout.
(3) Sauf si les parties en conviennent autrement par écrit, si la grève ou le lock-out n’est pas déclenché à la date mentionnée dans le préavis donné en vertu des paragraphes (1) ou (2), le syndicat ou l’employeur qui désire déclencher une grève ou un lock-out est tenu de donner un nouveau préavis d’au moins soixante-douze heures.
[16] The Canada Industrial Relations Regulations, SOR/2002-54 [CIR Regulations] prescribe the requirements for the contents of notices under section 87.2 of the Code. Section 7 of the CIR Regulations states:
Strike or Lockout Notice
Préavis de grève ou de lock-out
7(1) A notice of strike or lockout given under section 87.2 of the Act shall be given in writing, be dated and signed by or on behalf of the party giving the notice, be addressed to the other party to the dispute and state
7(1) Le préavis de grève ou de lock-out visé à l’article 87.2 de la Loi doit être signifié à l’autre partie au litige, être daté et signé par la partie qui le donne ou en son nom et comporter les renseignements suivants :
(a) the name and address of the party giving the notice of a strike or lockout;
a) les nom et adresse de la partie qui donne le préavis;
(b) the number of employees in the bargaining unit that will be affected by the strike or lockout;
b) le nombre d’employés de l’unité de négociation qui seront touchés par la grève ou le lock-out;
(c) the date and time when the strike or lockout is to commence; and
c) les date et heure du début de la grève ou du lockout;
(d) whether it is a first notice under subsection 87.2(1) or (2) of the Act or a new notice under subsection 87.2(3) of the Act.
d) la mention qu’il s’agit d’un premier préavis prévu aux paragraphes 87.2(1) et (2) de la Loi ou d’un nouveau préavis prévu au paragraphe 87.2(3) de la Loi.
(2) A copy of the notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be given to the Minister at the same time and in the same manner as referred to in subsection (1).
(2) Une copie du préavis est donnée en même temps au ministre selon les modalités prévues au paragraphe (1).
[17] Another pre-condition to acquisition of the right to engage in a legal strike or legal lockout by an employer organization like the BCMEA, also prescribed by paragraph 89(1)(f) of the Code, is set out in section 87.3 of the Code. That provision requires the holding of a secret ballot vote to authorize the strike or lockout within 60 days before the commencement of the strike or lockout. Subsections 87.3(1) and (2) provide as follows:
Secret ballot — strike vote
Scrutin secret — grève
87.3(1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has occurred, a trade union may not declare or authorize a strike unless it has, within the previous sixty days, or any longer period that may be agreed to in writing by the trade union and the employer, held a secret ballot vote among the employees in the unit and received the approval of the majority of the employees who voted.
87.3(1) Sauf si un lock-out non interdit par la présente partie a été déclenché, le syndicat ne peut déclarer ou autoriser une grève sans avoir tenu, dans les soixante jours précédents ou au cours de la période plus longue dont conviennent par écrit le syndicat et l’employeur, un vote au scrutin secret auquel tous les employés de l’unité ont eu le droit de participer et sans que la grève ait été approuvée par la majorité des votants.
Secret ballot — lockout vote
Scrutin secret — lock-out
(2) Unless a strike not prohibited by this Part has occurred, an employers’ organization may not declare or cause a lockout unless it has, within the previous sixty days, or any longer period that may be agreed to in writing by the trade union and the employers’ organization, held a secret ballot vote among the employers who are members of the organization and received the approval of the majority of the employers who voted.
(2) Sauf si une grève non interdite par la présente partie a été déclenchée, l’organisation patronale ne peut déclarer ou provoquer un lock-out sans avoir tenu, dans les soixante jours précédents ou au cours de la période plus longue dont conviennent par écrit le syndicat et l’organisation patronale, un vote au scrutin secret auquel tous les employeurs membres de l’organisation ont eu le droit de participer et sans que le lock-out ait été approuvé par la majorité des votants.
[18] Another pre-condition for acquisition of the right to strike or lockout, set out in paragraph 89(1)(e) of the Code, requires that the Board have decided any maintenance of activities applications or referrals under section 87.4 of the Code. That provision requires the maintenance during a legal strike or lockout of certain essential services, namely, those services, facilities, or production of goods required “to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”. The parties may refer unresolved questions about maintenance of activities to the Board for settlement, and the federal Minister of Labour may also refer issues regarding maintenance of activities to the Board after a notice of dispute (which commences the conciliation process) has been filed.
[19] The statutory freeze provisions contained in paragraph 50(b) and section 87.5 of the Code are also relevant to this application. Paragraph 50(b) provides, among other things, for the continuation of the terms and conditions of employment contained in a collective agreement after the expiry date of the previous collective agreement when the parties bargain beyond that date. The provision often comes into play because bargaining for a renewal agreement often extends past the expiry date of the previous collective agreement. Paragraph 50(b) of the Code provides that the statutory freeze of terms and conditions of employment extends until some (but not all) of the conditions in subsection 89(1) of the Code are met. Paragraph 50(b) of the Code reads as follows:
50(b) the employer shall not alter the rates of pay or any other term or condition of employment or any right or privilege of the employees in the bargaining unit, or any right or privilege of the bargaining agent, until the requirements of paragraphs 89(1)(a) to (d) have been met, unless the bargaining agent consents to the alteration of such a term or condition, or such a right or privilege.
50b) tant que les conditions des alinéas 89(1)a) à d) n’ont pas été remplies, l’employeur ne peut modifier ni les taux des salaires ni les autres conditions d’emploi, ni les droits ou avantages des employés de l’unité de négociation ou de l’agent négociateur, sans le consentement de ce dernier.
[20] Section 87.5 of the Code provides for continuation of the freeze while the Board considers a maintenance of activities application if that consideration extends beyond the date the requirements of paragraphs 89(1)(a) to (d) of the Code are met. Section 87.5 states as follows:
Rights unaffected
Maintien des droits
87.5(1) Where the Board has received an application pursuant to subsection 87.4(4) or a question has been referred to the Board pursuant to subsection 87.4(5), the employer must not alter the rates of pay or any other term or condition of employment or any right or privilege of the employees in the bargaining unit, or any right or privilege of the bargaining agent, without the consent of the bargaining agent, until the later of the date on which the Board has determined the application or the question referred and the date on which the requirements of paragraphs 89(1)(a) to (d) have been met.
87.5(1) Si une demande est présentée au Conseil en vertu du paragraphe 87.4(4) ou un renvoi est fait au Conseil en vertu du paragraphe 87.4(5), l’employeur ne peut modifier ni les taux de salaire ni les autres conditions d’emploi, ni les droits ou avantages des employés de l’unité de négociation ou de l’agent négociateur, sans le consentement de ce dernier tant que le Conseil n’a pas rendu sa décision ou que les conditions prévues aux alinéas 89(1)a) à d) n’ont pas été remplies, la dernière de ces éventualités à survenir étant retenue.
Rights unaffected
Maintien des droits
(2) Unless the parties otherwise agree, the rates of pay or any other term or condition of employment, and any rights, duties or privileges of the employees, the employer or the trade union in effect before the requirements of paragraphs 89(1)(a) to (d) were met, continue to apply with respect to employees who are members of the bargaining unit and who have been assigned to maintain services, facilities and production pursuant to section 87.4.
(2) Sauf accord contraire entre les parties, les taux de salaire ou les autres conditions d’emploi, ainsi que les droits, obligations ou avantages des employés, de l’employeur ou du syndicat en vigueur avant que les conditions prévues aux alinéas 89(1)a) à d) soient remplies demeurent en vigueur à l’égard des employés de l’unité de négociation affectés au maintien de certaines activités en conformité avec l’article 87.4.
Continuation of strike or lockout
Continuation de la grève ou du lock‑out
(3) A referral made pursuant to subsection 87.4(5), during a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, or an application or referral made pursuant to subsection 87.4(7), does not suspend the strike or lockout.
(3) Le renvoi prévu au paragraphe 87.4(5) — fait au cours d’une grève ou d’un lock-out non interdits par la présente partie — ou la demande ou le renvoi prévus au paragraphe 87.4(7) n’ont pas pour effet de suspendre la grève ou le lock-out.
[21] ILWU Canada relies on subsection 87.5(3) of the Code, which provides that where a question involving maintenance of activities is referred to the CIRB during a legal strike or lockout, the referral “… does not suspend the strike or lockout”.
[22] The provision limiting the right of a competing union to file a displacement (or raid) application during a strike or lockout is also relevant to this application for judicial review. Subsection 24(3) of the Code governs this issue and provides as follows:
No application during strike or lockout
Présentation en cas de grève ou de lock-out
24(3) An application for certification under subsection (2) in respect of a unit must not, except with the consent of the Board, be made during a strike or lockout that is not prohibited by this Part and that involves employees in the unit.
24(3) La demande d’accréditation ne peut, sans le consentement du Conseil, être présentée pendant une grève ou un lock-out non interdits par la présente partie et touchant des employés faisant partie de l’unité en cause.
[23] Provisions giving the CIRB authority to hold hearings via teleconference (or other electronic means) and on short notice are also relevant. Paragraphs 16(a.2) and (m) of the Code state:
Powers of Board
Pouvoirs du Conseil
16 The Board has, in relation to any proceeding before it, power
16 Le Conseil peut, dans le cadre de toute affaire dont il connaît :
…
[…]
(a.2) to order that a hearing or a pre-hearing conference be conducted using a means of telecommunication that permits the parties and the Board to communicate with each other simultaneously;
a.2) ordonner l’utilisation des moyens de télécommunication qui permettent aux parties et au Conseil de communiquer les uns avec les autres simultanément lors des audiences et des conférences préparatoires;
…
[…]
(m) to abridge or extend the time for doing any act, filing any document or presenting any evidence in connection with a proceeding;
m) abréger ou proroger les délais applicables à l’accomplissement d’un acte, au dépôt d’un document ou à la présentation d’éléments de preuve;
[24] In addition, under section 16.1 of the Code, the CIRB is empowered to decide any matter before it without holding a hearing. It reads as follows:
Determination without oral hearing
Décision sans audience
16.1 The Board may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing.
16.1 Le Conseil peut trancher toute affaire ou question dont il est saisi sans tenir d’audience.
[25] Paragraph 14(e) and section 15 of the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, SOR/2001-520 [CIRB Regulations] provide for an expedited process for illegal strike or lockout applications. Of particular relevance to this application, subsection 15(2) of the CIRB Regulations states as follows:
15(2) The application [for an illegal strike declaration] served on a respondent … constitutes notice to the respondents that a hearing may be held forthwith, at a time and a place to be communicated by the Board.
15(2) La signification de la demande à l’intimé [visant une déclaration de grève illégale] … tient lieu d’avis d’audience, celle-ci pouvant alors être tenue dès communication de la date et du lieu par le Conseil.
II. The Factual Background [26] I move now to outline the relevant factual background to this application.
[27] In late 2022, the BCMEA gave notice to bargain for the renewal of the collective agreement between the parties, which was set to expire on March 31, 2023. The parties met and bargained, but were unable to reach an agreement. In March 2023, ILWU Canada filed a notice of dispute to commence conciliation, which, as noted, is one of the required pre-conditions for acquisition of the right to strike under paragraph 89(1)(c) of the Code. The federal Minister of Labour appointed two conciliation officers from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to assist the parties and later extended the conciliation period to May 30, 2023, but no agreement was achieved. On June 1, 2023, the Minister of Labour appointed two FMCS mediators under section 105 of the Code to provide further assistance to the parties. On the same date, the 21-day cooling off period provided under paragraph 89(1)(d) of the Code commenced.
[28] On June 9 and 10, 2023, ILWU Canada held a strike vote and received overwhelming support for a strike, with 99.24 % of those who voted favouring a strike. On June 28, 2023, ILWU Canada gave the BCMEA strike notice under section 87.2 of the Code, advising that a strike would commence on July 1, 2023. On July 1st, ILWU Canada and its members commenced legal strike action. They established picket lines at the terminals of the BCMEA’s members and dispatch halls, and all bargaining unit members, except those servicing grain shipments and cruise ships, withdrew their labour. (As noted, under section 87.7 of the Code, services normally provided to ensure tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels at licenced terminals and transfer elevators and the movement of grain vessels must be continued during a legal strike. In addition, the parties have an understanding to continue servicing cruise ships in the event of a legal strike).
[29] ILWU Canada’s strike garnered national attention and effectively shut down operations at all west coast ports. While the strike was ongoing, the two FMCS mediators appointed by the Minister of Labour continued to work with the parties in an effort to settle the collective agreement.
[30] On July 11, 2023, the Minister of Labour wrote to the Director of FMCS and requested that the senior mediator working with the parties make a recommendation within 24 hours for Terms of Settlement under subsection 105(2) of the Code. On the same date, the Minister of Labour wrote to the parties, advising of the request for recommended Terms of Settlement. In his letter, the Minster of Labour noted that the strike was paralyzing Canadian imports and exports. The Minister of Labour also stated in his letter that the parties would have 24 hours from receipt of the Terms of Settlement to advise whether they were willing to recommend them for ratification.
[31] On July 12, 2023, the Minister of Labour forwarded the Terms of Settlement to the parties, underlining that they had 24 hours to confirm if they would recommend them to their respective principals for ratification. In addition, the Minister requested in his letter that, if the Terms of Settlement were acceptable to both parties, “as a sign of good faith”, ILWU Canada “suspend its strike while the voting process unfolds, and further that [the BCMEA] agree that no lockout will be imposed”.
[32] On July 12, the BCMEA responded to the Minister and advised that the BCMEA bargaining committee was recommending ratification of the Terms of Settlement. On July 13, 2023, the BCMEA ratified the Terms of Settlement.
[33] On July 13, 2023, ILWU Canada wrote to the Minister of Labour, stating that the ILWU Canada bargaining committee would “recommend to our [Longshore Contract Caucus] to send [the Terms of Settlement] to the membership”. On the same day, ILWU Canada began to take down its picket lines and its members began to return to work.
[34] The BCMEA issued an industry-wide notice that it was resuming operations on July 13, 2023. In collaboration with ILWU Canada, the BCMEA issued a notice of dispatch to employees on the same date, advising that operations would be up and running as of 4:30 p.m. and inviting employees to report to the hiring hall to resume work as of 4:30 p.m. on July 13, 2023. The employees largely did so, and the CIRB found that the strike ceased on July 13, 2023, as there was no evidence that any strike activity continued past that date. Operations in the ports on the west coast then returned to normal levels. The federal Ministers of Labour and Transport issued a joint statement on July 13, 2023, stating that the parties had reached a tentative agreement, and, on the same day, sent out Tweets, stating that the strike in the ports on the west coast was over.
[35] ILWU Canada never told the BCMEA, the mediators, the Minister of Labour, or the public that it considered a state of strike to be ongoing or that it reserved the right to recommence strike activities, without a further 72–hour notice to the BCMEA, if the Terms of Settlement were not ratified by an internal union committee. During the afternoon of July 18, ILWU Canada issued a news release, stating that its Longshore Contract Caucus had rejected the Terms of Settlement and that its members would be back on the picket lines a few hours later that same day. The longshore employees had no opportunity to vote on the Terms of Settlement before strike activities resumed.
[36] The ILWU Canada Constitution provides for contract caucuses “to develop a programme for collective bargaining as well as be a forum for strategy development in contract discussions”, to quote from Article 10 of the Constitution. In the present case, the Longshore Contract Caucus was comprised of five ILWU Canada officers and approximately 75 member delegates elected by the Longshore Locals. One of ILWU Canada’s affiants deposed that the ILWU Canada bargaining committee with whom the BCMEA bargaining committee and the FMCS mediators had been dealing was prohibited from recommending the Terms of Settlement to the membership and that it was the role of the Longshore Contract Caucus to do so. However, this requirement is not explicitly outlined in the ILWU Canada Constitution.
[37] ILWU Canada advised the BCMEA at approximately 3:00 p.m. on July 18, 2023 that its picket lines would be going up again at 4:30 p.m. that same day. At approximately 3:19 p.m. on July 18, 2023, counsel for the BCMEA called the ILWU Canada President and told him that the BCMEA considered the resumption of strike activities to be illegal due to the failure to provide a new 72–hour notice of strike. Shortly thereafter, counsel for ILWU Canada emailed the BCMEA to say that ILWU Canada counsel were authorized to accept service of an illegal strike application to the CIRB.
[38] By 4:30 p.m. on July 18, 2023, ILWU Canada and its members had fully withdrawn labour and re-established their picket lines. Certain vessels in port were left in a condition where they could not depart because they were only partially loaded or unloaded, and certain machines were left running when employees walked off the job.
[39] At approximately 5:15 p.m. on July 18, 2023, counsel for the BCMEA filed an illegal strike application with the CIRB and at the same time served counsel for ILWU Canada with a copy of the application.
[40] The Chairperson of the Board held a conference call with counsel for the parties at approximately 6:00 p.m. on July 18, 2023, which lasted for a little over 55 minutes. During the call, counsel for the BCMEA urged the Board to convene a hearing as soon as possible, stating that it was necessary for the CIRB to hear the parties that evening given the urgency of the situation. Counsel for ILWU Canada submitted that he needed more time and expressed the preference for proceeding the next morning. The Chairperson of the Board remarked that there were “many eyes on this” and indicated that the Board was “not delaying the urgency”. Counsel for ILWU Canada responded that he “was in [the Chairperson’s] hands”.
[41] At the conclusion of the call, the Chairperson of the CIRB determined that the hearing would proceed that evening at 9:30 p.m. by teleconference. She directed the parties to have witnesses available to be questioned and to submit any documents they relied on. The parties did so. All the documents filed by the BCMEA were either public ones or ones that were already in ILWU Canada’s possession. However, there are additional documents that ILWU Canada says that it would have put before the Board with more time to prepare. These are excerpts from Hansard, when section 87.2 of the Code was debated in the House of Commons, excerpts from Andrew C.L. Sims, Seeking a Balance: Canada Labour Code, Part I, Review (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1995) [Sims Report], and the decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board in V.S. Services Ltd. v. Health Care Employees Union of Alberta, [1990] Alta L.R.B.R. 523 [V.S. Services].
[42] The hearing took place between approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 18, 2023 and 1:30 a.m. the next morning. Both parties called witnesses and made submissions. At no time did ILWU Canada indicate that it needed more time to prepare or state that the union was taken by surprise by the BCMEA’s evidence or arguments. ILWU Canada was represented by experienced labour counsel during the hearing before the Board. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board took the matter under reserve. At approximately 7:30 a.m. the next morning, the CIRB issued the Order. As already noted, reasons for the Order followed approximately three weeks later.
[43] ILWU Canada issued a new strike notice on July 19, 2023, but withdrew it after the Prime Minister convened the Incident Response Group. During the week of July 21, 2023, the ILWU Canada membership voted on and rejected the Terms of Settlement. The parties thereafter continued to bargain and ultimately reached an agreement on the terms of a renewal collective agreement, which was ratified by the ILWU Canada membership on August 4, 2023.
III. The CIRB’s Reasons [44] I turn next to outline the salient points made by the Board in its Reasons for the Order.
[45] After identifying the parties and the application, the CIRB stated at paragraph 4 of its Reasons that the key issue in the dispute “…require[d] an interpretation of section 87.2(1) of the Code and a determination of whether the union suspended or ended the strike when it a