[1984] OLRB Rep. April 649
2722-83-U Chester Paean, Complainant, v. Teamsters Union Local 879, and Ryder Truck Lines, Respondents.
BEFORE: Owen V. Gray, Vice-Chairman.
APPEARANCES: Chester Pacan on his own behalf Eric del Junco and D. Mcllravey for the respondent union; Roger C. Ransom for the respondent company.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 2, 1984
The complainant alleges that he has been dealt with by the respondent trade union contrary to the provisions of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act. The complaint relates to grievances allegedly filed by the complainant while employed by the respondent employer. The respondent trade union challenges this Board's jurisdiction to hear the complaint. It says the labour relations of employees it represents in dealings with the respondent employer fall within federal jurisdiction. The facts relevant to jurisdiction are not in dispute.
The company known to the complainant as Ryder Truck Lines is federally incorporated, and recently changed its name from Ryder Truck Lines Limited to Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide Limited. It will be referred to in this decision as "Ryder Canada". Ryder Canada is operated "as a division of' a U.S. company called Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide Inc., which will be referred to here as "Ryder U.S.". Ryder Canada and Ryder U.S. are under common ownership and engage in the highway transport business. Ninety per cent of the loads carried by Ryder Canada are destined for or originate from points in the U.S. Trailers containing goods destined for the U.S. are hauled by Ryder Canada tractors to a yard in Fort Erie. There the trailers are attached to tractors operated by Ryder U.S., which then haul the trailers to their U.S. destinations. The same process operates in reverse when goods originating in the U.S. are destined for Canada. A customer of either Ryder company need only deal with that company concerning the international shipment of goods. Loads carried by the Ryder companies are carried on one through bill, regardless of origin or destination. A shipment is initiated with one set of paper work. Although the U.S. and Canadian legs of an international movement are each separately dispatched, the dispatching is co-ordinated by the Ryder organization. Drivers represented by the respondent trade union do not cross international boundaries, nor do the tractors they drive. Ryder U.S. drivers take their tractors no further than the "free zone" compound at Fort Erie.
The facts recited emerge from the statements of the complainant and representatives of the respondents. After hearing those representations, the complainant agreed that the facts were as they had been described. He said he had not been aware that there was an issue of this kind, even though he had consulted a labour lawyer. He had no argument to make about jurisdiction, and essentially left it to the Board to determine the issue.
International and inter-provincial highway transport undertakings, and their labour relations, fall within federal jurisdiction in the scheme of division of powers provided by sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to 1981: A. G. Ont. et al vs. Winner, Winner et al vs. S.M. T (Eastern) Ltd., [19531 A.C. 541; Re Tank Truck Transport Limited, 1960 CanLII 120 (ON HCJ), [1961] 25 D.L.R. (2d) 161 (Ont. H.C.), aff'd 1963 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1963] 36 D.L.R. (2d) 636 (Ont. C.A.); Regina vs. Cooksville Magistrate's Court, ex parte Liquid Cargo Lines Ltd. 1964 CanLII 162 (ON HCJ), [1965] 46 D.L.R. (2d) 700 (Ont. H.C.). The fact that tractors and employees of Ryder Canada may always remain in Ontario does not preclude the labour relations of that company from falling within federal jurisdiction. Ryder Canada hauls trailers which have crossed or are about to cross international boundaries. It does so as a functionally integrated part of the "Ryder" undertaking, of which Ryder Canada and Ryder U.S. are interdependent and operationally connected components. If that undertaking were conducted by one corporation, there would be no question that its labour relations with employees in Canada would be governed by federal legislation. The fact that there are two distinct corporations involved in the undertaking does not lead to a different result. In Northern Telecom Limited vs. Communications Workers of Canada et al, 1979 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115, Mr. Justice Dickson noted at pages 134-135 that:
In the field of transportation and communication, it is evident that the niceties of corporate organization are not determinative. As McNairn observes in his article ["Transportation, Communication and the Constitution: The Scope of Federal Jurisdiction" (1969), 47 Can. Bar Rev. 355] at pp. 380-1:
A transportation or communication undertaking is a possible corporate activity but it may or may not be segregated from the total corporate enterprise or it may even be larger in scope than a single corporate enterprise. To determine questions of this nature corporate objects have a certain relevance. But of primary concern is the integration of the various corporate activities in practice (including the corporate organizations themselves if more than one is involved) and their inherent interdependence.
McNairn's comment is borne out by the cases. On the one hand, a single enterprise may entail more than one undertaking, e.g. Canadian Pacific Railway's Empress Hotel was found to be an undertaking separate and independent from the railway undertaking in Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Attorney-General for British Columbia [1949 CanLII 278 (UK JCPC), [1950] A.C. 122]. On the other hand, two separate corporate enterprises may be found to be included within one single and indivisible undertaking, as in stevedores employed by a stevedoring company loading and unloading ships in the Stevedoring case [1955 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1955] S.C.R. 529, sub nonn. In re the validity of the Industrial Relations and Disputes and Investigations Act], or a trucking company which did 90 per cent of its business for the Post Office in Letter Carriers' Union of Canada v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers [11975] 1 S.C.R. 1781.
(See also Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. et al v. Communications Workers of Canada et al
(No. 2), (1983) 1983 CanLII 25 (SCC), 48 N.R. 161, 83 CLLC ¶14,048 (S.C.C.))
On the basis of the facts as described to me and agreed to by the complainant, I ruled orally that this Board is without jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, because the undertaking of the respondent employer falls within federal jurisdiction. That ruling is hereby confirmed. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint lies, if at all, with the Canada Labour Relations Board under section 136. 1 of the Canada Labour Code.
This complaint is, accordingly, dismissed.