Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of a union’s duty of fair representation under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code was scrutinized.

• Admissibility and probative value of audio recordings as evidence before the administrative tribunal were contested.

• The applicant’s right to self-representation in grievance proceedings under the collective agreement was interpreted.

• Reasonableness of the Canada Industrial Relations Board’s decision and its factual findings was reviewed.

• Whether the union’s actions amounted to bad faith, arbitrariness, or discrimination was evaluated.

• The appropriateness of the Board’s reliance on its discretion to reject evidence was considered.

Facts of the case

Steven Petruska, a former employee of Air Canada, brought a complaint against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW), his union, alleging that it breached its duty of fair representation under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code. The complaint stemmed from the union’s handling of his termination grievance. Mr. Petruska claimed the union acted in bad faith, discriminated against him, and failed to adequately represent him, particularly by excluding him from discussions, making decisions without his consent, failing to contact him for three months, and not achieving a just settlement regarding his termination. He also alleged that the union failed to account for compensation related to the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit for a specific period.

Proceedings before the Canada Industrial Relations Board

The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) reviewed Mr. Petruska’s complaint and ultimately dismissed it. The Board found that the union had not breached its duty of fair representation. It determined that the union had filed a grievance on Mr. Petruska’s behalf, advocated for him once it understood the dispute, and negotiated a settlement with Air Canada that reinstated him and made him whole. The Board also found that the union’s actions did not amount to bad faith, arbitrariness, or discrimination.

Judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal

Mr. Petruska, representing himself, sought judicial review of the CIRB’s decision in the Federal Court of Appeal. He argued that the Board made three reviewable errors: failing to admit certain audio recordings into evidence, finding that he was not stripped of his right to progress the grievance on his own, and concluding that the union had not acted in bad faith or in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. He further contended that the Board’s decision was unreasonable because it allegedly disregarded evidence, made errors of fact, and applied inconsistent standards.

The union, represented by counsel from Cavalluzzo LLP, responded that any initial issues were resolved and that the union had ultimately advocated for Mr. Petruska and achieved a fair settlement. The union maintained that the Board’s decision was reasonable.

Discussion of policy terms and relevant clauses

A key policy term discussed was article 17.01.11 of the collective agreement, which addresses the right of self-representation. The Board interpreted this clause to mean that while an employee may represent themselves in certain proceedings, the decision to refer a matter to arbitration rests solely with the union. The Board’s discretion to admit or reject evidence under subsection 16(c) of the Canada Labour Code was also at issue, particularly regarding the exclusion of Mr. Petruska’s audio recordings.

Outcome and ruling

The Federal Court of Appeal, in reasons delivered by Justice Rochester and concurred by Justices LeBlanc and Goyette, found that the Board’s decision was reasonable and justified in relation to the facts and law. The Court held that the Board’s exclusion of the audio recordings was within its discretion and that the applicant’s right to self-representation did not extend to determining whether to proceed to arbitration. The Court also found no reviewable error in the Board’s conclusion that the union had not breached its duty of fair representation. As a result, the Court dismissed Mr. Petruska’s application for judicial review and awarded costs to the respondent union in the all-inclusive amount of $250.