Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on whether the interest arbitration panel acted within its jurisdiction under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

• The Federal Court of Appeal upheld most elements of the arbitral award as reasonable and within the panel’s broad discretion.

• The Board failed to address a central jurisdictional objection regarding telework and remote work provisions.

• Argument centered on whether such provisions fell outside the Board’s mandate under subsections 5(3) and 55(2) of the Act.

• Court reiterated that administrative bodies must respond to essential arguments raised by parties, as required under Vavilov principles.

• The matter was remitted solely on the jurisdictional issue to a differently constituted panel for reconsideration.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from collective agreement negotiations between the Library of Parliament and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC). Two bargaining units were involved: the Library Science (Reference and Cataloguing) sub-groups and the Library Technician and Clerical and General Services sub-groups. After negotiations reached an impasse, the matter proceeded to interest arbitration, a mandatory mechanism under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (PESRA) due to the prohibition on strike activity.

The arbitration panel, acting under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, issued an award in October 2023 addressing various aspects of the collective agreements, including compensation and working conditions. The Library of Parliament sought judicial review of certain provisions in that award.

Challenged Provisions

The Library contested five specific portions of the arbitral award:

1. A 1.0% wage adjustment for the LS group in 2023.

2. Article 17.04 concerning fractional entitlements.

3. Article 18.05 on the valuation of designated paid holidays.

4. Article 29.19 involving the French-language version of the grievance procedure.

5. Article 39.01 and Appendix XX addressing telework and remote work protocols.

The Library argued that these provisions were either unreasonable or beyond the panel’s jurisdiction.

Court’s Reasoning and Outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal emphasized that interest arbitration gives arbitrators broad discretion to shape collective agreements, often through policy decisions rather than legal determinations. Citing prior jurisprudence, the Court noted that such decisions are owed significant deference, especially when they fall within a range of reasonable outcomes.

On the wage adjustment and first three contested provisions, the Court found no reviewable errors. It rejected the Library’s attempt to have the Court re-evaluate the evidence, reiterating that doing so is not the function of a reviewing court under administrative law principles established in Vavilov.

However, the Court took issue with the Board’s handling of the telework and remote work provision. The Library had objected to the inclusion of this provision, asserting it exceeded the Board’s jurisdiction under PESRA—specifically subsections 5(3) and 55(2), which protect certain managerial rights from being arbitrated. The Board failed to engage with this jurisdictional argument in its reasoning.

The Court held that such an omission was unreasonable. While arbitrators need not address every argument, they must respond meaningfully to central issues raised by the parties. By ignoring the jurisdictional challenge, the Board deprived the Court of its ability to assess the lawfulness of that part of the award.

As a result, the Court allowed the application in part. It remitted the matter of the telework and remote work provision to a differently constituted panel of the Board for reconsideration, solely on the issue of jurisdiction. No costs were awarded due to divided success.