MICHAEL DAVID SIELUZYCKI Applicant v. COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED and UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, 2023 FCA 251

Date: 20231221 Docket: A-57-22 Citation: 2023 FCA 251 CORAM: GLEASON J.A. LEBLANC J.A. HECKMANJ.A. BETWEEN: MICHAEL DAVID SIELUZYCKI Applicant and COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED and UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERSINTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 175 Respondents Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on December 19, 2023. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 21, 2023. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: GLEASON J.A.CONCURRED IN BY: LEBLANC J.A. HECKMAN J.A. Date: 20231221 Docket: A-57-22 Citation: 2023 FCA 251 CORAM: GLEASON J.A. LEBLANC J.A. HECKMANJ.A.

BETWEEN: MICHAEL DAVID SIELUZYCKI Applicant and COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED and UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERSINTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 175 Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GLEASON J.A. [1] The applicant seeks to set aside the letter decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) issued November 17, 2021 in2021 CIRB LD 4591. In that decision, a Vice-Chairperson of the CIRB dismissed a reconsideration application that sought to set asidethe refusal of the CIRB’s Registrar to process the applicant’s duty of fair representation and unfair labour practice complaints.

Both theRegistrar and the Vice-Chairperson concluded that the CIRB had no jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaints, which arose fromcircumstances surrounding the applicant’s job applications for position(

s) with the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Canada (Coca-Cola). [2] I see no reviewable error in the CIRB’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction. The labour relations of Coca-Cola do not fall within thecompetence of Parliament but are rather subject to provincial regulation. [3] Labour relations in most industries are a matter of provincial competence, as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council confirmednearly a hundred years ago in what has been called the Labour Conventions case, Canada (AG) v. Ontario (AG) (UKJCPC), [1937] UKPC 6, [1937] A.C. 326. [4] By way of exception, Parliament has jurisdiction over the labour relations of employees who work in federal works, undertakings, or

businesses, as the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in the case commonly known as the Stevedoring Reference, Validity andApplicability of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, (SCC), [1955] SCR 529. [5] The Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 governs which works, undertakings, or businesses are federal in nature.

Section 2 ofthe Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 (the Code) provides a useful listing of those works, undertakings, or businesses that aresubject to federal regulation.

Section 2 defines a federal work, undertaking, or business as meaning: "federal work, undertaking or business""means any work, undertaking or businessthat is within the legislative authority ofParliament, including, without restrictingthe generality of the foregoing, " "entreprises fédérales"" Les installations,ouvrages, entreprises ou secteurs d’activitéqui relèvent de la compétence législative duParlement, notamment : " "(a)"" a work, undertaking or businessoperated or carried on for or in connectionwith navigation and shipping, whetherinland or maritime, including the operationof ships and transportation by shipanywhere in Canada, " "a)"" ceux qui se rapportent à la navigationet aux transports par eau, entre autres à cequi touche l’exploitation de navires et letransport par navire partout au Canada; " "(b)"" a railway, canal, telegraph or otherwork or undertaking connecting anyprovince with any other province, orextending beyond the limits of a province, "

b) les installations ou ouvrages, entreautres, chemins de fer, canaux ou liaisonstélégraphiques, reliant une province à uneou plusieurs autres, ou débordant leslimites d’une province, et les entreprisescorrespondantes; "(c)"" a line of ships connecting a provincewith any other province, or extendingbeyond the limits of a province, " "c)"" les lignes de transport par bateaux àvapeur ou autres navires, reliant uneprovince à une ou plusieurs autres, oudébordant les limites d’une province; " "(d)"" a ferry between any province andany other province or between any provinceand any country other than Canada, " "d)"" les passages par eaux entre deuxprovinces ou entre une province et un paysétranger; " "(e)"" aerodromes, aircraft or a line of airtransportation, " "e)"" les aéroports, aéronefs ou lignes detransport aérien; " "(f)"" a radio broadcasting station, " "f)"" les stations de radiodiffusion; " "(g)"" a bank or an authorized foreign bankwithin the meaning of

section 2 of the BankAct, " "g)"" les banques et les banques étrangèresautorisées, au sens de l’article 2 de la Loisur les banques; " "(h)"" a work or undertaking that, althoughwholly situated within a province, is beforeor after its execution declared byParliament to be for the general advantageof Canada or for the advantage of two ormore of the provinces, "

h) les ouvrages ou entreprises qui, bienqu’entièrement situés dans une province,sont, avant ou après leur réalisation,déclarés par le Parlement être à l’avantagegénéral du Canada ou de plusieursprovinces; "(i)"" a work, undertaking or businessoutside the exclusive legislative authorityof the legislatures of the provinces, and " "i)"" les installations, ouvrages, entreprisesou secteurs d’activité ne ressortissant pasau pouvoir législatif exclusif deslégislatures provinciales; " "(j)"" a work, undertaking or activity inrespect of which federal laws within themeaning of

section 2 of the Oceans Actapply pursuant to

section 20 of that Act andany regulations made pursuant to paragraph26(1)(

k) of that Act; (""entreprisesfédérales"") " "j)"" les entreprises auxquelles les loisfédérales, au sens de l’article 2 de la Loisur les océans, s’appliquent en vertu del’article 20 de cette loi et des règlementsd’application de l’alinéa 26(1)

k) de lamême loi. (""federal work, undertaking orbusiness"") " [6] It is the nature of the employer’s core business that is considered in characterizing its business or undertaking for constitutionalpurposes: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, (SCC), [1948] SCR 373. Thus, thefact that a manufacturing business employs a driver who makes deliveries outside the province does not transform the undertaking into afederal one. [7] The contents of any collective agreement applicable to an employer and its employees is not relevant to determining whether theCode applies to them.

It is rather the nature of the employer’s core business that governs. Thus, contrary to what the applicant submitted,

it is not necessary to review the collective agreement applicable to the respondents to determine if the CIRB had jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaints. [ 8 ] Nor do the Motor Vehicle Operators Hours of Work Regulations , C.R.C., c. 990 provide a basis for federal jurisdiction in this case. As explained to the applicant during the hearing, those regulations only apply to drivers whose employers are subject to federal regulation, such as interprovincial transportation companies.

There are provincial regulations and legislation that apply to drivers who are employed by businesses, like Coca-Cola, whose labour relations are subject to provincial regulation. [ 9 ] Thus, the CIRB did not err in finding it had no jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaints. I would accordingly dismiss this application. "Mary J.L. Gleason" J.A. “I agree. René LeBlanc J.A.” “I agree. Gerald Heckman J.A.” FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: A-57-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHAEL DAVID SIELUZYCKI v.

COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED AND UNITED FOOD and COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 175 PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: December 19, 2023 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: GLEASON J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: LEBLANC J.A. HECKMAN J.A. DATED: DECEMBER 21, 2023 APPEARANCES : Michael David Sieluzycki ON HIS OWN BEHALF SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Lavery, de Billy L.L.P. Montréal, Quebec For The Respondents COCA-COLA CANADA BOTTLING LIMITED