Achi news desk-
Ottawa –
Excluding front-line supervisors at a Montreal casino from organizing under Quebec’s labor relations regime does not violate their constitutional rights, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
In a decision Friday, the Supreme Court said barring managers from the regime through a provision of Quebec’s labor code is not a violation of their charter guarantee of freedom of association.
70% of the operations supervisors assigned to the gaming tables at the Casino de Montreal were members of the association that petitioned for certification in 2009.
As part of the petition, the association sought to declare the exclusion of managerial personnel from the definition of “employee” in the district labor law as “constitutionally inoperative”.
The association, which also represents front-line managers at three other Quebec casinos, successfully argued in court that the definition violates the freedom of association guaranteed by the Charter of Rights.
The Supreme Court of Quebec approved a request for judicial review from the employer, Société des casinos du Québec, on the basis that there were several errors in the administrative ruling.
However, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned that decision, prompting the employer to take his case to the Supreme Court.
Judge Mahmoud Jamal wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court the two appropriate tests for deciding whether the legislation violates the charter provision guaranteeing freedom of association.
The first step involves determining whether the association’s activity is within the scope of the charter.
Jamal found that the association’s claims are indeed anchored in the provision, including the right to establish a body independent of the employer, to make collective representations to the employer and to consider them in good faith.
The second stage of the test involves determining whether the legislative exclusion substantially interferes with the protected activity of the members of the association.
Jamal said the purpose of the exclusion under the provincial labor code was not to interfere with the union rights of managers.
Instead, the intent to exclude managers from the definition of “employee” under the Code was:
- distinguish between management and operation in the hierarchy of an organization;
- avoid placing managers in a conflict of interest between their role as employer representatives and their role as employees in collective bargaining;
- To give employers confidence that managers will represent their interests, while protecting the unique shared interests of employees.
Jamal said the union also failed to show that the effect of the legislative exclusion was a substantial interference with its members’ rights to meaningful collective bargaining.
He noted that the supervisors were able to band together to form the association, and the Montreal division was voluntarily recognized by the employer as the frontline representative of the managers.
In addition, the employer and the Montreal division successfully concluded a memorandum of understanding that provides a framework for cooperation and consultation on working conditions and related issues, he wrote.
Jamal concluded that the terms of the memorandum prove that the members of the association “can connect and bargain collectively with their employer”.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published on April 19, 2024.
