Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Discretion of the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) to refuse to rule on an application under article 39 of the Code du travail based on article 9 al. 2(2°) of its constitutive statute.

• Interpretation of the terms “plainte” (complaint) and “requête” (application) and their relevance to the TAT’s statutory powers.

• Determination of the appropriate bargaining unit for teaching staff at the Centre de formation de transport de Charlesbourg when traveling between work locations.

• Judicial review of the TAT’s exercise of discretion and the Superior Court’s upholding of that discretion.

• Consideration of whether procedural fairness or rules of natural justice were violated when the TAT referenced a grievance not in evidence.

• Scope of the Court of Appeal’s leave to appeal, limited to the statutory discretion issue.

Facts of the case

The Syndicat de l’enseignement de la région de Québec (SERQ) filed an application with the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) under article 39 of the Code du travail. The application sought a determination as to which bargaining unit—either the SERQ (representing teachers) or the Syndicat du personnel de soutien des Premières-Seigneuries (representing support staff)—covered teaching staff at the Centre de formation de transport de Charlesbourg when those staff were traveling, outside the presence of students, between their home and work locations or between two work locations. The Centre de services scolaire des Premières-Seigneuries (CSSP-S) is the employer in question.

Procedural history and decisions

The TAT, relying on paragraph 9 al. 2(2°) of its constitutive statute (Loi instituant le Tribunal administratif du travail, LITAT), declined jurisdiction and refused to decide the application, stating that the matter could be settled by an arbitrator in a grievance procedure. The SERQ challenged this decision by seeking judicial review before the Superior Court, which dismissed the application for judicial review on August 4, 2025. The SERQ then sought leave to appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Discussion of policy terms and clauses at issue

The legal question centered on the interpretation of article 9 al. 2(2°) of the LITAT, which allows the TAT to refuse to rule on the merits of a complaint under the Code du travail or the Loi sur les normes du travail if the matter can be settled by an arbitrator’s decision on a grievance, except for certain specified complaints. The SERQ argued that the TAT’s discretion under this provision does not extend to applications under article 39 of the Code du travail, which concerns accreditation and bargaining unit determinations. The court examined whether the TAT’s refusal to decide the application was legally justified and whether the terms “plainte” and “requête” are interchangeable for the purposes of the statute.

Outcome and ruling

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judgment dated October 9, 2025, partially granted the SERQ’s application for leave to appeal. Leave was granted only on the question of whether the TAT has the discretion, under article 9 al. 2(2°) of its constitutive statute, to refuse to decide an application under article 39 of the Code du travail. Leave was not granted on the issue of alleged violation of natural justice. The SERQ was thus the successful party at this stage, as it was permitted to appeal the Superior Court’s decision on the statutory discretion issue. No final decision was made on the merits of the accreditation dispute, and no specific amount for costs or damages was awarded. The judgment stated that costs would follow the outcome of the appeal or be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.