Judgments

Decision Information

Kenwood's Moving & Storage Ltd. v. Cartage & Misc. Employees Union

Collection Judgments
Date 1973-02-13
Report citation [1973] 1 F.C. 136
Subjects Labour Relations

Decision Content

Kenwood's Moving & Storage Limited (Appli- cant)
v.
Cartage and Miscellaneous Employees Union (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Thurlow and Pratte JJ., and Perrier D.J.—Montreal, P.Q., February 13, 1973.
Labour relations—Canada Labour Relations Board— Jurisdiction to hear certification application—Certification under provincial legislation irrelevant.
The jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Relations Board under the Canada Labour Code is in no way dependent on what has been done under provincial legislation. The Board is therefore entitled to proceed to hear and determine an application for certification notwithstanding that an earlier certification under Quebec legislation had not been rescind ed or annulled.
APPEAL. COUNSEL:
Bertrand Lacombe for applicant. Harold Lehrer for respondent.
Claude Ruelland for Attorney General of Canada.
SOLICITORS:
Martineau, Walker, Allison, Beaulieu, Phelan and Mackell, Montreal, for applicant.
Lazarus and Lehrer, Montreal, for respondent.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for Canada Labour Relations Board.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THURLOW J. (orally)—We do not need to hear you Mr. Lehrer and Mr. Ruelland.
We are all of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Relations Board under the Canada Labour Code is in no way depend ent on what has been done under provincial legislation and that there was no error of law on the part of the Board in proceeding to hear and determine the application of the respondent for
certification notwithstanding the fact that the earlier certification under the legislation of the Province of Quebec had not been rescinded or annulled.
We are also of the opinion that the applicant's allegation of failure on the part of the Board to observe the principles of natural justice in the hearing of the respondent's application for cer tification is unfounded in fact and in law.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.