1. Employee dismissals — Alleged unfair labour practices — Board orders for reinstatement and monetary loss — Challenge to the Board's constitutional validity under the British North America Act. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1948 Supreme(SC) 70
Privy Council At Saskatchewan
Mcdermott, Morton of Henryton, Oaksey, Simonds, Justice Lords Porter, JJ.
Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan -Appellant
Versus
John East Iron Works Ltd. -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 13 of 1948
Decided On : 13-10-1948
Advocates Appeared:
Lawrence Jones and Co., Burchells, Lawrence Jones and Co., Charles Russell and Co., Redden, Blake, Laurence Jones and Co., F. Gahan, E.C. Leslie, M.C. Shumiatcher, F.A. Brewin
Lawrence Jones and Co., Burchells, Lawrence Jones and Co., Charles Russell and Co., Redden, Blake, Laurence Jones and Co., F. Gahan, E.C. Leslie, M.C. Shumiatcher, F.A. Brewin
A provincial tribunal is not "analogous" to a superior court under Section 96 of the British North America Act if its jurisdiction is primarily administrative, based on social or industrial policy, and its composition requires non-judicial expertise, even if it exercises some judicial functions.
Headnote:(A) Trade Union Act, 1944 - Sections 4, 5(e), 8(1)(e), 9, 10, 15 - British North America Act, 1867 - Sections 92(14) and 96 - Constitutionality of a provincial labour board - Power to order reinstatement and monetary compensation - Whether a tribunal is "analogous" to a superior, district or county court - The nature of the jurisdiction is primarily administrative and designed to implement industrial policy rather than enforce contractual rights - Composition of the board, including representatives of employers and employees, distinguishes it from the judicial officers appointed under Section 96 - Immunity from certiorari does not elevate a tribunal to the status of a superior court. (Paras 8, 25-31)
(B) Judicial Power - Not all tribunals exercising judicial power fall within the ambit of Section 96 of the British North America Act, 1867 - The test for "analogy" involves whether the jurisdiction broadly conforms to the type of jurisdiction exercised by superior, district or county courts. (Paras 8, 35)
Facts of the case:
An employer dismissed several employees, leading to a complaint of unfair labour practices. A provincial labour board ordered the employer to reinstate the employees and pay monetary losses. The employer challenged the validity of the governing Act, contending that the board was unconstitutionally exercising judicial power without its members being appointed by the Governor General, thereby violating the constitutional framework for superior courts.
Findings of Court:
The board is not a superior, district or county court, nor is it a tribunal analogous to them. The Act is not ultra vires on the constitutional ground raised.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the provincial Act conferring powers of reinstatement and enforcement on a labour board were ultra vires the provincial legislature for purporting to confer judicial power upon a body not appointed by the Governor General.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal is not "analogous" to a superior court if its jurisdiction is based on administrative policy, such as industrial peace and collective bargaining, rather than the traditional adjudication of a suit between parties. The requirement for members to possess extra-judicial experience, specifically representing employers and employees, further distinguishes such a body from the courts mentioned in Section 96. (Paras 26-28)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Board is a tribunal analogous to a superior court — Purported conferral of judicial power upon a body not appointed by the Governor General. (Para 5 )
Lord Simonds.-
In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, a question of constitutional importance is raised whether certain provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1944, of the Province of Saskatchewan, which will be referred to as "the Act", are within the legislative powers of that Province UNDER THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT , 1867,
[2] The facts of the case upon which the question arises are not in dispute and can be shortly stated.
[3] On 15th May 1947, the respondent, John East Iron Works, Limited which carries on business in Saskatchewan, dismissed from its employment six of its employees. Thereupon the United Steel Workers of America, a trade union, complaining that the respondent in dismissing these employees bad been guilty of an unfair labour practice within the meaning of S. 8 (1) (e) of the Act applied to the appellant, the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan, for orders requiring the respondent to reinstate them and to pay them the monetary loss suffered by them by reason of their dismissal. On 10th, 11th and 12th June 1947, the union's applications were beard by the appellant Board and in the coarse of the hearing the application in respect of one of the six employees was withdrawn. Both the union and the respondent appeared by counsel before the appellant Board and called evidence. The appellant Board, having heard evidence and argument, found that the respondent had discriminated :
"against each of the five employees in regard to tenure of employment with a view to discouraging membership in or activity in or for a labour organisation (the applicant trade union)" and had discharged them contrary to the provisions of the Act.
[4] On 8th July 1947, the appellant Board issued orders requiring the respondent to reinstate each of the five employees and to pay each of them the sum of $200.80, being the sum which each of them would have received for his services if he had remained in the employment of the respondent continuously from 23rd May 1947 (up to which date he had been paid) until the date of that decision.
[5] On 6th November 1947, the respondent filed a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan giving notice of intention to move the Court for an order quashing the orders of the appellant Board. The notice stated six grounds of application of which only one has been considered by the Court of Appeal and by their Lordships. That ground is that the Act in so far as it purports (a) to make the orders of the appellant Board enforceable as orders of the Court of King's Bench, and (b) to give to the appellant Board the power to make any order under S. 5 (e) of the Act is "ultra vires of the legislature of Saskatchewan as being legislation setting up a superior, district or county Court or tribunal analogous thereto, the Judges or members of which are not appointed by the Governor General of Canada in Council and as purporting to confer judicial power upon a body not so appointed."
[6] On 15th December 1947, the Court of Appeal (Martin C. J. and Gordon, Macdonald and Anderson JJ.), upholding this plea, gave judgment quashing the orders of the appellant Board. Hence this appeal to His Majesty in Council.
[7] It is now necessary to recur to the terms of the Act the validity of which is impeached, but before doing so it is proper to recall the salient provisions of the British North America Act 1867. Under that Act, while by S. 92, there was exclusively reserved to the Provincial Legislatures legislative power in respect of "(14) The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organisation of Provincial Courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those Courts," yet by Part VII, entitled "Judicature", the following provisions are made, which must be stated in full:
" Section 96 , The Governor-General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts in e
