The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a labour board decision finding that a union did not breach its duty of fair representation when it negotiated a settlement for a terminated Air Canada employee, even though the worker rejected the agreement as inadequate.
The court dismissed a judicial review application by the worker, who argued the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers acted in bad faith, discriminated against him and failed to adequately represent him following his termination. The Canada Industrial Relations Board had previously dismissed the worker’s complaint, finding no breach of the union’s duty of fair representation.
The worker, who represented himself before the Federal Court of Appeal, raised three main arguments: the labour board improperly refused to admit audio recordings into evidence, wrongly found he was not stripped of the right to progress his grievance independently, and unreasonably determined the union had not acted in bad faith or in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
Union’s handling of grievance
The worker argued the union failed to involve him in discussions with the employer, made decisions without his consent, did not contact him for three months, excluded him from the dispute resolution process and ultimately failed to achieve a just settlement.
The union acknowledged issues occurred during the initial stages of the dispute but maintained these errors did not constitute a breach of its duty. The union filed a grievance on the worker’s behalf and, once it fully understood the nature of the dispute, advocated for the worker and achieved a settlement with Air Canada that would have reinstated him and rendered him whole.
The court found the labour board’s decision was reasonable, noting that from October 2021 onwards, the steps taken by the union fulfilled its duty to fairly represent the worker. The court stated it found no evidence the worker was “abandoned by his Union.”
Audio recordings excluded
The court upheld the labour board’s decision to exclude a series of audio recordings from evidence. The board had concluded the recordings were inadmissible primarily because the case turned on facts that were not in dispute and the recordings were of limited probative value.
The court noted the labour board is entitled to reject evidence “in its discretion” and “as it sees fit” whether or not the evidence would be admissible in court, as provided under the Canada Labour Code. The court stated that interfering with this conclusion would amount to second-guessing the board’s factual and evidentiary findings, which it cannot do absent exceptional circumstances.
Right to self-representation
The worker also argued he was stripped of the right to handle his grievance independently. The court found the labour board reasonably concluded this argument failed because the collective agreement did not grant the worker the right he claimed.
The board had found that while the collective agreement contained a right of self-representation in article 17.01.11, this provision did not include a right to determine whether a matter should be referred to arbitration. Under the collective agreement, the decision to proceed to arbitration rested with the union, meaning the worker could not have been stripped of a right he did not possess.
Settlement rejected by worker
The worker ultimately rejected the settlement the union negotiated with Air Canada. He argued the settlement was unjust because it did not account for compensation in lieu of the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit for the period between May 10 and June 14, 2021.
The court found this dissatisfaction with the settlement outcome was insufficient to demonstrate the labour board’s conclusion was unreasonable given the record as a whole.
Standard of review applied
The court applied a reasonableness standard of review, which is deferential to labour board decisions. The court noted that reasonableness review is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error” and that written reasons from an administrative body must not be assessed against a standard of perfection.
Under this standard, courts may only intervene if a decision is not justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker. The approach is one of deference, especially regarding findings of fact and weighing of evidence. A reviewing court should not reweigh or reassess evidence considered by the decision maker and substitute its own findings.
The court acknowledged the decision was not perfect but found it was reasonable and justified in relation to the record and the law that constrains the labour board.
The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs of $250 to the union.
For more information, see Petruska v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 2025 FCA 203 (CanLII).
