A-21-81
J. Dumas (Applicant)
v.
Public Service Staff Relations Board and J. F. W.
Weatherill (Respondents)
and
The Queen for the Treasury Board, represented by
the Attorney General of Canada (Mis -en-cause)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Marceau JJ. and
Hyde D.J.—Montreal, May 14, 1981.
Judicial review — Labour relations — Application to review
and set aside decision of Adjudicator — Whether the terms
"overtime" and "hours worked" in a collective agreement are
synonymous — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c.
10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Paul Lesage for applicant.
Robert Lee for mis -en-cause.
SOLICITORS:
Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Cleary & Ménard,
Montreal, for applicant,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
mis -en-cause.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: Although we are not in agreement
with the reasons given by Mr. Weatherill in sup
port of his decision, we nonetheless consider that
the decision is correct.
Applicant's entire argument was based on the
premise that the phrases "heures supplémen-
taires" ("overtime") and "heures travaillées"
("hours worked") in subparagraph 15.01(a)(î) of
the collective agreement applicable in the case at
bar are not used as synonyms. In the opinion of the
Court this premise is incorrect. As the English
version of this clause makes clear, these phrases
are used in the same sense: they all refer to hours
of overtime.
For these reasons the application will be
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.