Employment Jurisdiction Decision

Reasons for decision [NAME], complainant, and [COMPANY]., respondent . Board File: 036610-C Neutral Citation: 2026 [NAME] 1238 April 8, 2026 The panel of the [NAME] (the Board) was composed of [NAME], External Adjudicator, appointed pursuant to section 12.001(1) of the Canada Labour Code (the Code ). Section 16.1 of the Code provides that the Board may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing. Having reviewed all of the material on file, the Board is satisfied that the documentation before it is sufficient for it to determine this complaint without an oral hearing. Counsel of [NAME], for [NAME]; [NAME], for [COMPANY].

I. Nature of the Complaint [ 1 ] [NAME] (the Complainant) filed an unjust dismissal complaint on November 14, 2022, pursuant to Division XIV of Part III (Standard Hours, Wages, Vacations and Holidays) of the Code , alleging that [COMPANY]. ([NAME]) unjustly terminated his employment. [ 2 ] [NAME] is in the business of providing preventative pollution control services in the provincial harbour of British Columbia. It employed the Complainant as a captain from November 2017 to November 2022. [ 3 ] [NAME] denies unjustly dismissing the Complainant and asserts that he was dismissed for abandoning his position. [ 4 ] [NAME] applies on a preliminary basis for a finding that its labour relations are properly under provincial jurisdiction and therefore not governed by the Code . It submits that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint and should dismiss it accordingly. [ 5 ] On January 16, 2025, the Board held a case management conference and directed the parties to provide written submissions and supporting evidence on the issue of jurisdiction. [ 6 ] For the reasons that follow, the Board has determined that it does not have jurisdiction over [NAME]’s labour relations. The complaint must therefore be dismissed.

II. Background and Facts [ 7 ] There was very little dispute over the relevant facts, and the Board finds that it can decide the jurisdictional issue based on the parties’ written submissions and supporting documentation. A. Nature of the Business [ 8 ] [NAME]’s business provides preventative pollution control services to ships loading and unloading oil in the Vancouver Harbour in British Columbia. [NAME] designs, constructs and deploys floating oil pollution booms, which are vertical floating barriers made of plastic floats attached to rubber belting. These booms encircle the loading or unloading vessel to contain potential spills. [ 9 ] [NAME] owns its own vessels, which operate on a callout basis and are normally moored in Port Moody or New Westminster, British Columbia. [NAME]’s vessels operate within British Columbia’s Burrard Inlet, Vancouver Harbour and Fraser River and parts of the Strait of Georgia. Its vessels do not cross United States borders or Canadian territorial or provincial borders. [NAME] does not perform any work internationally or interprovincially. [ 10 ] [NAME] has contracts to provide its floating oil boom services to approximately eight Vancouver -based companies and oil terminals. These companies are predominantly involved in international or interprovincial marine transportation of oil products. [NAME] uses its own vessels to bring the floating oil booms to the oil terminals and oil vessels when needed for loading and unloading operations. [ 11 ] [NAME] places the floating oil booms around the vessel after the vessel is loaded into the berth and before oil is loaded into the vessel. In the event of a spill, [NAME]’s oil booms will contain spilled oil or particulate within a confined area and another company will come to retrieve the spilled oil or particulate. [ 12 ] [NAME] and its employees do not assist with vessel movement, navigation, docking, shipping, product handling or any other aspect of shipping operations beyond deploying the floating oil booms. B. Applicable Legislation and Regulations [ 13 ] [NAME] is subject to several federal statutes and regulations in conducting its business. Its vessels are registered with Transport Canada, pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (CSA). Its captains are required to be certified and complete exams in accordance with Transport Canada’s Marine Personnel Regulations , SOR/2007-115, and this requirement applied to the Complainant during his employment. These provisions apply to a wide range of Canadian vessels and are not limited to those involved in loading and unloading oil. [ 14 ] The CSA and its regulations apply to the oil handling facilities that contract with [NAME] to provide floating oil booms during oil vessel loading and unloading, as well as to the oil vessels themselves . Both the oil handling facilities and the oil vessels are governed by federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping. [ 15 ] Part 8 of the CSA is entitled “Pollution Prevention and Response.” It applies to oil handling facilities and requires them to implement an oil pollution prevention plan. In particular, section 167.2(1) of the CSA provides the following: 167.2 (1) Subject to the regulations, a person who proposes to operate an oil handling facility of a class established by the regulations shall, at least 90 days before the day on which the oil handling facility’s operations relating to the loading or unloading of oil to or from vessels will begin — or within any other time specified by the Minister — submit to the Minister (a) an oil pollution prevention plan to prevent a discharge of oil during the loading or unloading of a vessel, which meets the requirements set out in the regulations; and (b) an oil pollution emergency plan to respond to a discharge of oil during the loading or unloading of a vessel, which meets the requirements set out in the regulations. [ 16 ] Section 168(1) of the CSA sets out further requirements that oil handling facilities must meet with respect to preventing and containing oil spills: 168 (1) Subject to the regulations, the operator of an oil handling facility of a class established by the regulations shall (a) have an arrangement with a response organization in respect of any quantity of oil that is, at any time, involved in being loaded or unloaded to or from a vessel at the oil handling facility, to a prescribed maximum quantity; (b) have on site a declaration in the form specified by the Minister that (i) describes the manner in which the operator will comply with the regulations made under paragraph 182(1)(a), (ii) confirms that the arrangement has been made, and (iii) identifies every person who is authorized to implement the arrangement and the oil pollution emergency plan referred to in paragraph (d); (c) have on site an up-to-date oil pollution prevention plan to prevent a discharge of oil during the loading or unloading of a vessel, which meets the requirements set out in the regulations; (c.1) submit the up-to-date oil pollution prevention plan to the Minister within the time and in the circumstances set out in the regulations; (d) have on site an up-to-date oil pollution emergency plan to respond to a discharge or possible discharge of oil during the loading or unloading of a vessel, which meets the requirements set out in the regulations; (d.1) submit the up-to-date oil pollution emergency plan to the Minister within the time and in the circumstances set out in the regulations; and (e) have the procedures, equipment and resources required by the regulations available for immediate use in the event of a discharge of oil during the loading or unloading of a vessel. [ 17 ] Section 168(3) of the CSA requires oil handling facilities to take reasonable measures to implement the oil pollution prevention plan. [ 18 ] The oil handling facilities contract with [NAME] to deploy floating oil booms to meet the requirements set out above for spill prevention and for maintaining an appropriate oil pollution prevention plan, including having the appropriate equipment to effectively manage spills. This appropriate equipment can include floating oil booms, but they are not specifically required. [ 19 ] The legislation and regulations do not explicitly require the use of floating oil booms. Floating oil booms are an optional part of the oil handling facilities’ pollution prevention plans, which, as set out above, are required for them to carry on business.

III. Positions of the Parties A. [NAME]’s Position [ 20 ] [NAME] submits that its operations are properly under provincial jurisdiction and that the Board does not have jurisdiction to decide this complaint. [NAME] maintains that its operations are not a federal work or undertaking, nor are they integral to the operation of a federal work or undertaking, within the meaning of the applicable case law. [ 21 ] [NAME] submits that its vessels operate only within British Columbia and do not cross interprovincial or international borders. [NAME] further submits that its operations are too far removed from international or interprovincial trade to be characterized as supporting such trade. [ 22 ] [NAME] relies on case law holding that transporting oil-related waste and providing maintenance , repair and clean-up services to interprovincial railways are all within provincial jurisdiction. [ 23 ] [NAME] asserts that while it admittedly has relationships with federal undertakings—the oil terminals and oil vessels to which it deploys floating oil booms—those relationships do not meet the “functional test” criteria required to be considered integral or essential to a [NAME]. [ 24 ] [NAME] denies that the functional test is met for several reasons, including the following: its work takes place entirely within British Columbia waters; it performs work for several companies as opposed to one dominant customer ; its work is carried out pursuant to annually renewable service contracts; its work is not directed or supervised by employees of a [NAME]; and its work was not previously performed by employees of a [NAME]. [ 25 ] [NAME] relies on the following authorities: [COMPANY]. , 2012 [NAME] 643 ( [NAME] ); [COMPANY]. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters , 2009 SCC 53 ( [NAME] ); [NAME] v. [COMPANY]. , 2018 CanLII 128213 (CA LA) ( [NAME] ); [NAME], Ontario Provincial District Council v. [NAME] , 2021 CanLII 67617 (ON LRB) ( [NAME] ); [COMPANY]. and [COMPANY]. , 1999 [NAME] 30 ( [NAME] ); and [NAME] v. [COMPANY]. , 2010 BCSC 1506. [NAME]’s Position [ 26 ] [NAME] submits that [NAME], while not itself a federal work or undertaking, has a close enough operational relationship to a federal work or undertaking—the oil terminals and oil vessels—to be considered “an integral part of a federal work or undertaking.” [ 27 ] [NAME] submits that the purpose of [NAME]’s deployment of floating oil booms is to contain oil spills and prevent their spread into open water, as required by federal legislation and regulations, including the CSA, which mandates that vessels loading and unloading oil have pollution control plans to contain spill-related damage. [ 28 ] According to [NAME]’s services are therefore not optional but are required and essential for the operation of oil terminals and oil vessels. [NAME] submits that [NAME]’s status as an independent contractor is not determinative, relying on case law holding that an independent contractor’s services can nonetheless be so intimately tied to a federal work or undertaking as to fall under federal jurisdiction. [ 29 ] [NAME] points to case law holding that tugboat companies are federally regulated because they are functionally tied to a federally regulated industry, even where their vessels operate only in provincial waters. [NAME] argues that the cases relied on by [NAME] are distinguishable, as they concern whether an employer’s vehicles cross provincial borders (which is not at issue in this case) and services provided to a [NAME] that are useful but not legally required (unlike the floating oil booms in this case). [ 30 ] [NAME] relies on the following authorities: Validity and Applicability of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act , 1955 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1955] S.C.R. 529 ( Stevedores Reference ); United Transportation Union v. Central Western Railway Corp , [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1112 ( Central Western Railway ); Northern Telecom v. Communications Workers , [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115 ( [NAME] ); [NAME] ; and [NAME] .

IV. Analysis and Decision [ 31 ] Both parties accept that [NAME] is not itself a federal work or undertaking. It is also not in dispute that [NAME] services oil terminals and oil vessels that are federal works or undertakings. As the Board is satisfied that there is no direct jurisdiction, the question to be determined is whether [NAME]’s operations are integral or essential to those federal works or undertakings so as to bring [NAME] itself under federal jurisdiction. [ 32 ] For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that [NAME]’s operations are not integral to the operations of oil terminals and oil vessels, which fall under federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping. Therefore, the Board finds that [NAME]’s operations fall under provincial jurisdiction. A. Applicable Legal Principles [ 33 ] The relevant legal principles for determining the jurisdictional issue derive from the Code itself, sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the Constitution Act ) and the case law interpreting those sections. [ 34 ] The Code, including Part III (under which [NAME]’s complaint is brought), applies to employees and employers working on or in connection with the operation of any “federal work, undertaking or business” (see sections 4 and 167(1) of the Code ). [ 35 ] Section 2 of the Code defines a “federal work, undertaking or business” in part as follows: 2 … federal work, undertaking or business means any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament , including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, (a) a work, undertaking or business operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada, … (c) a line of ships connecting a province with any other province, or extending beyond the limits of a province. [ 36 ] As the Board explained in [NAME] and other cases, the above-noted Code sections mirror the wording of sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act , which is the starting point for any issue related to the division of powers between federal and provincial governments. [ 37 ] Section 91 of the Constitution Act sets out the matters within federal jurisdiction, including section 91(10), “Navigation and Shipping .” Section 91(29), in conjunction with section 92(10)(a), clarifies that federal jurisdiction includes the interprovincial and international shipping of goods. [ 38 ] Labour relations are, as a general rule, a matter within provincial jurisdiction over “Property and Civil Rights” set out in section 92(13) of the Constitution Act . They only come within federal jurisdiction if the industry in which the employees are employed falls under another federal head of power (see [NAME] ; [NAME]; and [NAME] ). An employee’s employment can be covered by the Code if: a. The employee’s employer itself is a federal work undertaking or business…; or b. The employee’s work is integral to the operation of another, existing, core federal work or undertaking … (see [NAME] , at paragraph 36) [ 39 ] The parties agree that item (a) does not apply. The focus of the Board’s analysis must therefore be whether [NAME]’s work deploying floating oil booms for the benefit of oil terminals and oil vessels ( which are themselves federal undertakings) establishes a sufficiently close connection to be considered vital, integral or essential to a [NAME], thereby bringing [NAME] itself under federal jurisdiction. [ 40 ] In [NAME], a case about telecommunications equipment installers and their relationship to a federal communications system, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the following “functional test” to determine if a subsidiary entity is integral to a [NAME]: A recent decision of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board, [COMPANY]. [[1974] 1 Can L.R.B.R. 29], provides a useful statement of the method adopted by the courts in determining constitutional jurisdiction in labour matters. First, one must begin with the operation which is at the core of the [NAME]. Then the courts look at the particular subsidiary operation engaged in by the employees in question. The court must then arrive at a judgment as to the relationship of that operation to the [NAME], the necessary relationship being variously characterized as “vital”, “essential” or “integral” . As the [NAME] phrased it, at pp. 34-5: In each case the judgment is a functional, practical one about the factual character of the ongoing undertaking and does not turn on technical, legal niceties of the corporate structure or the employment relationship. In the case at bar, the first step is to determine whether a [NAME] is present and the extent of that core undertaking. Once that is settled, it is necessary to look at the particular subsidiary operation , i.e., the installation department of Telecom, to look at the “normal or habitual activities” of that department as “a going concern”, and the practical and functional relationship of those activities to the [NAME]. (pages 132 – 133; emphasis added) [ 41 ] In [NAME] , the Board reviewed in detail the jurisprudence governing the analysis of whether work is integral to a [NAME], focusing specifically on shipping and interprovincial and international transportation. The Board observed that the cases in which work was found to be integral to a [NAME] had certain “common factors” or indicia but that these do not all need to be present for federal jurisdiction to be found: [ 49 ] …The common factors regarding the nature of the subsidiary work variously included: the work is done for or at the request of a specific customer who operates a [NAME]; the work is all, or essentially all, performed for a single dominant customer; the work is done pursuant to a fixed term contract; the work is carried out subject to the supervision or control of the employees of a [NAME]; the work has previously been performed by the employees of the [NAME] or the employees of the [NAME] would themselves be capable of performing the subsidiary work. These are just some of the common factors or indicia of the type of practical and functional relationship required. Obviously, not all of the common factors or indicia are present in each of the four cases at issue, nor do they need to all be present. We are not saying that all of the common factors must all be present to find federal jurisdiction. However, it is clear that the greater the number of common factors that are present, the easier the task of finding that the normal and habitual work of the subsidiary operation is vital or essential or integral to the operation of a core federal work. (emphasis added) [ 42 ] The cases referred to by the parties establish that the following types of work have been found to be integral to a [NAME]: The loading and unloading of ships by stevedores (see the Stevedores Reference ); The installation of telecommunications equipment for an interprovincial communications system (see [NAME] ); Tugboat services within a port helping to berth and dock ships involved in international transportation, without which the ships would not be able to dock in Vancouver Harbour (see [NAME] ); and The work of a private company delivering mail locally under contract with the [NAME] (see [NAME] v. [NAME] et al. , [1975] 1 S.C.R. 178, cited in [NAME] ). [ 43 ] Conversely , the case law establishes that the following types of work have been found not to be integral to a [NAME]: The work of a freight -forwarding company that performs consolidation, deconsolidation and local pickup and delivery of freight and that contracts with third-party interprovincial carriers but does not cross provincial borders itself (see [NAME] ); Maintaining and repairing train tracks for interprovincial railways (see [NAME] ); Collecting and transporting oil-related waste to and from job sites, with most transport being within a province (see [NAME] ); Work performed by workers on a provincial railway that is physically connected to an interprovincial railway, with distinct operations (see Central Western Railway ); Work performed by employees who operate and maintain grain silos, where grain is stored and moved onto trucks after being unloaded from ships (see [COMPANY], Gagnon and Boucher Division v. [NAME]’s Association Local 1739, et al. (1983), 51 N.R. 182 (F.C.A., no A-799-81), cited in [NAME] ); The work of “ship chandlers” who supply provisions to ships coming into a local port (see [COMPANY]., [1974] OLRB Rep. July 446, cited in [NAME] ); Water taxi services to carry people between a port and ships waiting at anchor (see [COMPANY]. , [1980] 3 Can LRBR 552 (B.C.), cited in [NAME] ); Cargo inspection, sampling and testing of internationally transported goods in a port (see [COMPANY]. , CLRB order no. 5487-U dated December 20, 1989, cited in [NAME] ; see also [COMPANY]. (1992), 87 di 127 (CLRB no. 923), at paragraphs 21–22); and The work of marine surveyors who provide draft surveys and hold inspections of ships (on behalf of shippers, not the shipping companies themselves) and who act as “load masters” supervising the loading and unloading of oil onto and from vessels to ensure it is done without pollution (see [NAME] ). [ 44 ] While the Board has considered all the authorities submitted by the parties, it has not found helpful those cases in which a court or tribunal simply assumed jurisdiction without the issue having been raised or argued by the parties and without any analysis thereof. B. Application of Legal Principles to the Facts [ 45 ] As set out above, the parties agree that the applicable legal test is the following “functional test” from [NAME] : Has a core federal work or undertaking been identified? What are the normal and habitual activities of the subsidiary entity as a going concern? Is there a sufficient nexus between the normal and habitual work of the subsidiary and the operation of the federal work or undertaking to find that the work is vital, essential or integral to that operation? [ 46 ] The Board will now apply each step of the test to the facts before it.

1. Has a core federal work or undertaking been identified? [ 47 ] The approximately eight companies with which [NAME] contracts are predominantly engaged in international or interprovincial marine transportation. The parties agree that these oil handling facilities and oil vessels with which [NAME] contracts to provide its floating oil booms are themselves federal works or undertakings. The first part of the [NAME] test is therefore met.

2. What are the normal and habitual activities of the subsidiary entity as a going concern? [ 48 ] There is little to no dispute about [NAME]’s normal and habitual activities. [NAME] designs, constructs and deploys floating oil booms to encircle ships that are loading or unloading oil in the Vancouver Harbour. This is a preventative pollution control service intended to contain potential oil spills. [ 49 ] [NAME] owns its own vessels, which are moored and operate fully within British Columbia and do not cross provincial, territorial or international borders. [NAME] uses its own vessels to bring, on a callout basis, the floating oil booms to where vessels are loading or unloading oil. [NAME] places the booms around the vessel to contain spilled oil or particulate within a confined area until another company comes to clean up the spilled oil or particulate. [ 50 ] [NAME] and its employees do not assist with vessel docking, shipping, product handling or any other aspect of shipping operations beyond deploying floating oil booms.

3. Is there a sufficient nexus between the subsidiary’s normal and habitual work and the operation of the federal work or undertaking such that its work is vital, essential or integral to that operation? [ 51 ] The key question to be decided, on which the parties differ, is whether [NAME]’s deployment of floating oil booms to vessels loading and unloading oil is vital, essential or integral to the interprovincial and international shipping of oil products so as to bring it under federal jurisdiction. [ 52 ] To determine whether a sufficient nexus exists under the third part of the [NAME] test, the following indicia identified in [NAME] may assist but are not determinative: The work is predominantly performed for a single dominant customer who is a [NAME]; The work is done pursuant to a fixed-term contract; The work is carried out under the supervision and control of the employees of the [NAME]; and The work was previously done, or could be done, by employees of the [NAME]. [ 53 ] The Board agrees with [NAME] that the above-noted indicia , which would weigh in favour of a finding that [NAME]’s services are integral to a [NAME], are generally not present in this case, and [NAME] does not attempt to argue otherwise. [ 54 ] With respect to item (a), [NAME]’s contracts are with approximately eight separate companies, and its work is not performed for a specific, dominant customer. Turning to item (b), the work is performed pursuant to annually renewable service contracts between [NAME] and the oil facilities, rather than under a fixed-term contract. With respect to item (c), there is no evidence that the oil facilities’ employees direct the work of [NAME]’s employees. Finally, with respect to item (d), neither party asserts, and there is no evidence, that [NAME]’s work was previously performed by the oil facilities themselves. [ 55 ] [NAME] focused on the fact that [NAME] and its employees are licensed and registered under the CSA and other federal legislation and regulations. However, this legislation applies to a wide range of vessels, and none of the case law cited by the parties supports a finding of federal jurisdiction over the company’s labour relations. [ 56 ] Another key factor relied on by [NAME] in arguing that [NAME]’s services are integral to a federal work or undertaking is his assertion that deploying the floating oil booms is legally required and that, therefore, the oil facilities and vessels cannot engage in the interprovincial and international shipping of oil without [NAME]’s services. [ 57 ] For its part, [NAME] argues that deploying floating oil booms is helpful and convenient but optional in the sense that it is not specifically required in any legislation or regulations. [ 58 ] [NAME] argues that this case is similar to [NAME] , in which the work of tugboat operators performed exclusively in Vancouver Harbour was found to be integral to international shipping because ships would be unable to dock in the harbour without their services. [ 59 ] The Board finds that the facts in this case do somewhat resemble those in [NAME] . Like the tugboat company in that case, [NAME] operates solely within Vancouver Harbour and contracts directly with companies engaged in international and interprovincial shipping. However, the Board does not agree that deploying floating oil booms is legally required or that the oil facilities cannot transport oil internationally or interprovincially without them. [ 60 ] As set out above, the CSA and its regulations require the oil facilities to have a pollution prevention plan to mitigate the risks of oil spills during the loading and unloading of oil vessels. The Board accepts that the oil facilities engage [NAME] as part of their pollution prevention plans; however, [NAME] does not assert, and neither the legislation nor the regulations state, that the plan must specifically include the deployment of floating oil booms. [ 61 ] A useful analogy is with [NAME] , in which the services of a train track maintenance company were found not to be integral to an interprovincial railway. The Ontario Labour Relations Board in that case emphasized that the analysis should not focus on whether the interprovincial railway could function without a properly maintained track but rather on whether it could function without the services of the subsidiary’s employees. Because it could function without those services, the subsidiary was not integral to the [NAME]. [ 62 ] Here, similarly, the relevant question is not whether the oil facilities can transport oil without a pollution-control plan generally but whether they can do so without [NAME]’s specific services deploying floating oil booms. [ 63 ] The evidence before the Board points to a conclusion that the oil facilities contracting with [NAME] could carry on their federal works or undertakings without [NAME]’s services. Deploying floating oil booms is one way in which they fulfill the requirement to prevent pollution, but not the only way. This supports a finding that [NAME]’s activities are not integral to the operation of a [NAME]. [ 64 ] [NAME] likens this case most closely to [NAME] , in which the work of marine surveyors who inspected ships for their ability to appropriately hold cargo was found not to be integral to a [NAME] and therefore under provincial jurisdiction. [ 65 ] The Board finds that [NAME] is not directly on point because, in that case, there was no evidence that the company employing the marine surveyors contracted with shipping companies that were themselves federal undertakings. The Board in that case found that the work of the marine surveyors was actually for the benefit of the companies using the shipping companies’ services to transport their goods (see paragraphs 197–198). In the present case, there is no dispute that [NAME] contracts directly with the oil facilities, which are federal undertakings. [ 66 ] This case resembles [NAME] in the Board’s finding that the work of the marine surveyors was too far removed from the actual activity of international and interprovincial shipping to be considered integral to that [NAME]. This is also similar to the Board’s finding in [NAME] that the company’s train track maintenance activities, while helpful, were too far removed from the actual activity of moving trains between provinces to be integral to that [NAME]. [ 67 ] The concept of the subsidiary’s activities being too far removed from the core of the [NAME] is another basis on which [NAME] , while being somewhat factually similar, can be distinguished from this case. That is, the tugboat operators in [NAME] directly assisted with the movement of ships engaged in international shipping, whereas [NAME]’s floating oil booms help prevent marine pollution during loading and unloading but are not directly involved in the ships’ movement or navigation. [ 68 ] The activity of deploying floating oil booms, similar to train track maintenance and marine surveying, is too far removed from the activity of transporting oil interprovincially and internationally to be considered integral to that federal work or undertaking. [ 69 ] In light of the absence of the [NAME] indicia and the fact that the use of floating oil booms is helpful but not required, the Board finds that [NAME]’s activities are not integral to a federal work or undertaking and are therefore under provincial jurisdiction.

V. Conclusion [ 70 ] For all the above reasons, the Board finds that [NAME]’s employees do not work in or in connection with a federal work , undertaking or business within the meaning of the Code and the Constitution Act . The complaint is therefore outside the Board’s jurisdiction, and [NAME]’s preliminary objection is upheld. The complaint is dismissed. ____________________ [NAME]