On April 19, 2024, the Supreme Courtroom of Canada handed down the long-awaited resolution on the unionization of managers. In Société des casinos du Québec inc. v. Affiliation des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec,1 the Supreme Courtroom dominated that excluding an affiliation of first-level managers from the Quebec Labour Code regime was constitutional, they usually due to this fact had no proper to unionize. This can be a beneficial resolution for employers, in {that a} resolution on the contrary may have significantly broadened the appropriate to unionize on this nation.
Abstract of the choice
In accordance with the Supreme Courtroom, the Affiliation des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec (the Affiliation) didn’t show that, when making use of the two-part take a look at set out in Dunmore2 , the legislative exclusion of first-level managers from the overall regime of collective labour relations in Quebec violates the liberty of affiliation assured to its members by the Canadian Constitution of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Constitution) and Quebec’s Constitution of Human Rights and Freedoms (Quebec Constitution).
The Supreme Courtroom thus overturned the Quebec Courtroom of Enchantment’s resolution that the definition of “worker” within the Labour Code is simply too restrictive because it excludes all ranges of managers. On February 8, 2022, the Courtroom of Enchantment had reinstated the Administrative Labour Tribunal’s resolution (ALT) that excluding managers from the Labour Code regime interfered with their freedom of affiliation. On the identical time, the Courtroom of Enchantment suspended, for 12 months, the ALT’s declaration of inoperability regarding the legislative exclusion of managers.3
Writing for almost all of the Supreme Courtroom, Justice Jamal held that there’s just one analytical framework for assessing whether or not a legislation or authorities motion infringes freedom of affiliation below the Canadian Constitution: the two-step framework established in Dunmore, which asks:
- whether or not the actions of the employees in query fall throughout the scope of the liberty of affiliation assure;
- whether or not authorities motion interferes with the protected actions in objective or impact.
On this case, Justice Jamal solutions the primary a part of the take a look at within the affirmative. By an utility for certification, the Affiliation, was looking for to have its members be topic to the collective labour relations regime offered by the Labour Code regarding actions protected by freedom of affiliation. These actions embrace the appropriate to kind an affiliation that’s sufficiently impartial of the employer, to make collective representations to the employer, and to have these representations thought of in good religion.
Nevertheless, in his evaluation of the second half, Justice Jamal concluded that excluding managers from the Labour Code regime didn’t have the aim or impact of considerably interfering with the liberty of affiliation of the Affiliation’s members.
The court docket reiterated that the appropriate to significant collective bargaining doesn’t assure entry to a selected mannequin of labour relations. Somewhat, the liberty of affiliation set out within the Canadian Constitution ensures a technique of collective bargaining.
Justice Rowe factors out {that a} elementary freedom doesn’t at all times oblige the state to facilitate its train. A optimistic obligation for the state to guard a freedom ought to solely come up the place the claimant would in any other case be incapable of exercising the liberty. That’s the reason a better burden forces the claimants to show why, of their circumstances, a posture of restraint from the state just isn’t sufficient.
The Supreme Courtroom discovered that, regardless of this legislative exclusion, the Affiliation’s members had managed to affiliate and that various recourses to the protections offered within the Labour Code existed, demonstrating they weren’t unable to train their freedom of affiliation or discount collectively with their employer. Briefly, this exclusion doesn’t intervene with the associative rights of managers. Quite the opposite, it ought to be remembered that:
[…] the legislature’s functions in excluding managers from the definition of “worker” below the Labour Code have been to tell apart between administration and operations in organizational hierarchies; to keep away from putting managers in a state of affairs of battle of curiosity between their function as staff in collective bargaining and their function as representatives of the employer of their employment tasks; and to present employers confidence that managers would signify their pursuits, whereas defending the distinctive widespread pursuits of staff […].4
Takeaways
With this resolution, the Supreme Courtroom acknowledges and underscores that the labour relations regime set out within the Labour Code relies on the very distinction between staff and managers, and that it is a elementary precept to be protected.
This ruling ought to be very favourably obtained by Quebec employers.
In the end, because the Supreme Courtroom rightly factors out, the legislative exclusion of managers from the labour relations regime set out within the Labour Code makes it attainable to keep away from function conflicts between employer and staff within the context of their skilled tasks (for instance, within the context of collective bargaining of staff’ working circumstances). This exclusion ensures managers adequately signify the employer’s pursuits, and thus preserves the employer’s confidence in its representatives.
The writer want to thank Marilou Bouthiette, articling pupil, for her contribution to getting ready this authorized replace.
