Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Canada Industrial Relations Board determined that GCT Canada failed to comply with its statutory duty to involve the workplace health and safety committee in all vessel inspections.

• The original direction issued under the wrong section of the Canada Labour Code was later corrected by the Board to refer to the appropriate provision, paragraph 135(7)(e).

• GCT contested the Board’s authority to vary the original direction, arguing the correction was beyond its legal powers.

• The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Board acted reasonably in amending the direction to reflect the applicable legal provision.

• The court accepted the Board’s reasoning that GCT exercised sufficient control over the vessels to trigger workplace inspection obligations.

• The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded against GCT Canada.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and the parties involved
This case arises from a workplace safety dispute between GCT Canada Limited Partnership, which operates container terminals in British Columbia, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514. GCT is responsible for stevedoring services at its Vanterm terminal in Vancouver. A union member filed a complaint alleging that GCT was conducting vessel safety inspections without consistently involving the terminal's workplace health and safety committee, as required under Canadian labour law.

Initial complaint and administrative proceedings
The complaint was initially lodged under subsection 136(5) of the Canada Labour Code, which applies to individual workplace safety representatives. However, it was later clarified that the correct provision governing the matter was paragraph 135(7)(e), which mandates participation by workplace health and safety committees in all safety inspections. A ministerial delegate issued a direction against GCT based on the erroneous provision, instructing the company to immediately involve employee representatives in inspections. GCT appealed to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Decision by the Canada Industrial Relations Board
The Board corrected the legal reference from 136(5) to 135(7)(e), ruling that it had the power to amend the direction as the factual basis of the violation remained unchanged. It concluded that GCT had indeed contravened its obligations under the Code by excluding the committee from certain vessel inspections. Furthermore, the Board reasoned that GCT exercised sufficient operational control over the vessels to be held responsible for inspection obligations, despite not owning them. This control was established through its ability to influence safety measures, conduct inspections, and delay or deny services based on compliance.

Judicial review and the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling
GCT sought judicial review of the Board’s decision, challenging both the legal authority of the Board to amend the direction and its interpretation of what constitutes “control” over a workplace. Applying the reasonableness standard from the Supreme Court’s Vavilov framework, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Board’s findings. The court emphasized that correcting a technical statutory citation did not amount to a new or different legal issue and was permissible since the facts remained the same.

The court further found that the Board’s interpretation of GCT’s influence and practical control over vessels docked at Vanterm was well-reasoned and supported by evidence. This included GCT’s role in ensuring safety compliance, its contractual relationships with vessel owners, and its routine access to the vessels. As a result, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Costs and conclusion
The Court ordered GCT to pay costs to the respondent, although the amount was not specified. No damages were awarded. The decision confirms that employers cannot avoid statutory health and safety duties by distancing themselves from workplace environments they influence through operational practices or contracts.