Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les de bureau, section locale 571, SEPB CTC-FTQ v. Garzouzi

Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Two grievances — one collective, one individual — were filed by the union challenging the City of Montréal's overtime authorization procedures for lawyers working on Sundays.
• Central to the collective grievance was whether the City's requirement that employees complete a justification form before Sunday overtime could be approved constituted an addition to the collective agreement.
• Disputed in the individual grievance was whether the employer abused its management rights by refusing to authorize 3.75 hours of Sunday overtime worked by Me Jean-Nicolas Loiselle on September 5, 2021.
• Applicable to this judicial review was the reasonableness standard as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov (2019 CSC 65).
• Employees do not hold an inherent right to perform overtime, and the arbitrator found that management's authority to require justifications for Sunday work flows from residual management rights.
• Privacy and professional autonomy arguments raised by the union were rejected as unfounded, since the employer neither required Sunday work nor imposed an obligation to remain available on that day.

Facts of the case

The applicant, Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les de bureau, section locale 571, SEPB CTC-FTQ (the Union), sought judicial review of an arbitral award rendered on June 27, 2024 by arbitrator Me Amal Garzouzi. The award dismissed two grievances filed against the Ville de Montréal (the City), which employed a group of lawyers governed by a collective agreement in force from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023. The dispute arose from a procedure implemented by the City requiring its lawyers assigned to civil matters to complete a form justifying the necessity of performing overtime on Sundays — the only day on which those employees are compensated at double time. The collective grievance challenged this requirement, while the individual grievance concerned the City's refusal to authorize payment for 3.75 hours of Sunday overtime allegedly performed by Me Jean-Nicolas Loiselle on September 5, 2021.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

The collective agreement's key provisions were Articles 2 and 10. Article 2.03 confirmed that the City holds the exclusive right to manage, direct, and administer its affairs in a manner compatible with the collective agreement. Article 10.01 established a normal workweek of 35 hours over five consecutive days, generally Monday to Friday. Article 10.02 set out overtime compensation: lawyers required by their immediate supervisor to work on Saturday are paid at 50% above their hourly rate, while those required to work on Sunday are paid at 100% above their hourly rate. The Union argued that the phrase "required by their immediate supervisor" in Article 10.02 was central to its position — contending that where a lawyer initiated the overtime request himself, he alone held the authority to decide whether the overtime would fall on a Saturday or a Sunday, effectively choosing between a 50% or 100% premium.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The arbitrator rejected the Union's arguments, finding they rested on a flawed premise. In the arbitrator's view, lawyers possess no acquired right to perform overtime and therefore cannot unilaterally decide whether or when to work extra hours. The arbitrator reasoned that even where a lawyer initiates an overtime request, supervisory authorization remains required. The arbitrator further found that requiring a written justification for Sunday overtime does not engage the lawyers' right to privacy or professional autonomy, as the City neither compelled Sunday work nor imposed an obligation to be available on that day. The arbitrator also concluded that implementing the justification form was a lawful exercise of residual management rights and did not constitute an addition to the collective agreement. Regarding the individual grievance involving Me Loiselle, the arbitrator found that despite several reminders from his manager, Me Loiselle failed to provide adequate explanation for his Sunday overtime request, having offered only that it was for "personal reasons and a right under the collective agreement" while noting he was well-rested after his vacation. The Superior Court, applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, found no basis to interfere. The reviewing court was not persuaded that the arbitrator's conclusions — on either the collective or individual grievance — were unreasonable, unintelligible, or insufficiently motivated. The court also noted, in passing, that the Union's own proposed interpretation — that the employer could only grant a block of overtime hours with the employee having sole discretion over the day — would lead to absurd results and would itself constitute an addition to the collective agreement.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Superior Court, per Justice Bernard Synnott, dismissed the Union's application for judicial review in its entirety. The City of Montréal, as the respondent employer, was the successful party. No monetary award or damages were granted; rather, costs of the judicial review proceedings were ordered against the applicant Union. No specific dollar amount for costs was stated in the judgment.