2014 QCCQ 3126, 2014 QCCQ 3126

International Longshoremen's Association Local 1657 c. Vaudry 2014 QCCQ 3126 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division No: 500-32-130098-116 DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE MARTINE L. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1657 Plaintiff v.

GREG VAUDRY Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ TRANSCRIPT OF A JUDGMENT [1] RENDERED ON THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1657 (the “ Association ”) is claiming from Mr. Vaudry the payment of a $50 fine for having failed to cast his vote at the election meeting of October 4, 2009. [ 2 ] The Union relies on

Article 2,

Section 15, of its By-Laws (P-5) that reads: It shall be obligatory for every member to cast his or her ballot on the election day of the Local. Any member failing to do so shall be subject to a fine of $ 50.00 payable to the Secretary-Treasurer within thirty (30) days. [ 3 ] Mr. Vaudry explains that he had worked from midnight until 10:00 AM the night before the election day and he was simply exhausted. He went to bed. [ 4 ] The Court understands that there are some situations where one who works all night needs to rest and cannot show up at a meeting. The Court also understands that Mr.

Vaudry’s issue is more one of principle. He does not believe that it is fair that the By-Laws are so stringent, so strict. To him the By-Laws should provide some room for people who are unable to attend the meeting on election day. They should be more flexible to allow them to vote, maybe even in advance. [ 5 ] The Court has to apply the law as it stands in Québec. The worker who joins a trade union such as the Association must accept and follow the rules [2] .

If he disagrees with one of the rules, he may voice his dissenting opinion but must follow the rules put in place by the system to do so. [ 6 ] It is a well established principle that a union has disciplinary powers of its own. In fact, here, the By-Laws of the Association were providing Mr. Vaudry with a right to appeal the decision to charge him the $50 fine within 30 days of the date he received the letter requesting its payment. Therefore, Mr. Vaudry had until November 8, 2009 to file an appeal of that disciplinary measure.

He did not do so. [ 7 ] The By-Laws are the rules governing the contractual relationship existing between the union and its members. Since they do not contravene public order, the Court must apply them. [ 8 ] As unfair as the rule may seem to Mr. Vaudry, the proper channel to voice his unhappiness about it is through the framework of the By-Laws of the Association. There are sections in the By-Laws that provide for a process which could lead to their amendment or even rescission [3] . [ 9 ] So, this Court is not the proper forum to change the rule or to modify the By-Laws.

The union, who has the power to discipline, comes to Court, establishes that the requirements for the fine to be charged are met and ask for the condemnation of the member to its payment. If the evidence supports the claim, the Court has to grant the demand. [ 10 ] The Court is also seized with a cross-claim from Mr. Vaudry who is claiming $7,000 from the Union, saying that he is being singled out and harassed. The Court has already exchanged with Mr. Vaudry on this matter and reiterates that the Union was allowed to institute proceedings to recover the $50 fine. To collect it, the Union needed a judgment.

From the time I say “Yes they have the right to come and take an action”, I cannot blame them and charge them or hold them responsible for damages resulting from a legal and valid claim. [ 11 ] If the Court looks at the other spectrum of Mr. Vaudry’s claim that has been explained as being: “There is stuff that is happening at the port which is unacceptable and I feel threatened”, first of all, Mr. Vaudry cannot hold the Union responsible for threats

and actions of the Association’s members, unless he proves that the Union has encouraged or recommended them. Such evidence being unavailable, the claim cannot succeed. In any event, if there is an issue of harassment in a place of work, this Court is not the proper forum to debate it considering the applicable labour laws. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the action of the International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1657; [ 13 ] CONDEMNS Mr. Vaudry to pay the International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1657 the sum of $50, plus interest at the annual rate of 5% per annum and the additional indemnity provided for by

Article 1619 C.C.Q ., as of May 16, 2011; [ 14 ] DISMISSES Defendant’s cross-claim against the International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1657; [ 15 ] GRANTS no legal cost on either side, under the circumstances. ________________________________ MARTINE L. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 24, 2014.