Select 2006 Decisions

Canadian Forest Products Ltd. –and– Hospital Employees Union et. al., BCLRB No. B312/2006 (currently under appeal)
The Labour Relations Board found that the HEU did not breach the Code during political protests arising during the 2004 dispute between the HEU and the Government over Bill 37, although it found two individuals breached the Code...more

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3500 –and– Board of School Trustees of School District No. 73 (Kamloops/Thompson), October 7, 2006 (Dorsey)
This decision is a preliminary award dealing with the production of a harassment report...more

Mc Dougall –and– International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 882 –and– Superior Building Maintenance, 2006 BCHRT 502
The BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint against the Union. The Complainant suffered a medical condition that led her to be unable to perform her job...more

Terasen Gas Inc. -and- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213 -and- Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 378, BCLRB No. B176/2006

This decision concerned the designation of essential services at Terasen Gas...more

Westfair Foods Ltd. –and– Loblaws Inc. –and– Kelly Douglas & Company Limited –and– 499649 B.C. Ltd. –and– United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, BCLRB No. B116/2006

In this decision the Labour Relations Board found that the Employer was breaching sections 6 and 68 of the Labour Relations Code by using replacement workers to do the work of employees on strike at an Extra Foods grocery store franchised by Westfair Foods...more

Westfair Foods Ltd. –and– Loblaws Inc. –and– Kelly Douglas & Company Limited –and– 499649 B.C. Ltd. –and– United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, BCLRB No. B88/2006

In this decision the Labour Relations Board granted the Union’s application for a declaration that Westfair Foods was an ally of a struck Extra Foods grocery store franchised by Westfair Foods...more

Trimble v. Yukon Human Rights Commission et al., 2006 YKSC 28 (April 11, 2006)

In this case, the Yukon Supreme Court quashed a decision of the Yukon Human Rights Commission in which the Commission had dismissed the petitioner’s human rights complaint...more

Prince George Airport Authority –and- Public Service Alliance of Canada (Smith grievance – objection to damages claim), dated April 3, 2006.

The Employer dismissed the grievor for allegedly selling trees located on its property without permission...more

Prince George Airport Authority –and- Public Service Alliance of Canada (Smith grievance – timeliness objection), dated April 3, 2006.

The Employer dismissed the grievor for allegedly selling its assets. The collective agreement included a time limit of 30 working days for the Union to refer the matter to arbitration after learning of the Employer’s denial of the grievance...more

Cunningham obo Cunningham v. School District No. 71 et al., 2006 BCHRT 142 (March 13, 2005)

In this case, the BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a human rights complaint against a teacher on the basis that the actions alleged did not violate the Human Rights Code and that proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code...more

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. –and- United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, BCLRB No. B51/2006

This decision dealt with an application for a variance made by the Union. In a previous decision of the Board (B190/2005), a bargaining unit of employees working in the Tire and Lube Express (“TLE”) department of seven of the Employer’s locations across the province was found to be an appropriate unit. Shortly after the Employer filed an application for leave for reconsideration of that decision, the Union filed for certification of an identical unit at the Employer’s Cranbrook location (which was not part of the Union’s original application). The Employer agreed to forego its objections to that application, provided that it could apply to reconsider it and consolidate that application with its existing application. The Board did consolidate the matters, and eventually granted leave to reconsider on one ground in decision B301/2005. On remittal to the original panel, the Cranbrook certification was again granted in decision B5/2006.

In the present application, the Union sought to vary two TLE departments in the Employer’s Surrey locations into its existing Cranbrook bargaining unit or, alternatively, to have each of the two departments certified as stand alone units. One of the two TLE departments was part of the unit that was found appropriate in B190/2005. In response to the Employer’s objection to the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit, the Union argued (among other things) that the issue of appropriateness of a single TLE department was res judicata due to decision B190/2005 and the line of cases that followed it.

The Board found that res judicata did apply, and the Employer’s appropriateness objections should be dismissed. The Board found that, while appropriateness was a fluid concept that was highly fact specific, the doctrine of res judicata could nonetheless apply to it, provided that a change in circumstances had not occurred that would alter the appropriateness of the proposed unit.

The Board also found that the three elements of res judicata existed in the present case. Two of the elements (that the parties were the same, and that the first decision was a final one) were not in dispute. However, the Employer disputed the third element: whether the question before the present application was the same as in the previous one. The Board found that, even though one of the two Surrey departments was not part of the proposed unit in B190/2005, the “labour relations issue” was the same.

The Board also found that a finding of res judicata could be vitiated should there be a material change in the law in the intervening time period, however it found that B190/2005 was not such a “material change”. The Board further found that the discovery of new evidence could also vitiate a res judicata argument, but that the type of evidence that he Employer sought to adduce was known, or should have been known, to the Employer at the time of the hearing of B190/2005.

Accordingly, the Board denied the Employer’s objections regarding the appropriateness of a certifying a single TLE department. The Employer’s objections to the variance remained outstanding.

To view a copy of this decision in Adobe Acrobat format, click here.

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. –and- United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, BCLRB No. B5/2006

This decision dealt with an application for certification made by the Union for employees working in the Tire and Lube Express (“TLE”) department of the Employer’s locations. The Union had previously applied for a unit of seven such TLE departments across the province (of which the Cranbrook TLE was not part of)...more

Kemess Mines Ltd. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, 2006 BCCA 58

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Employer’s appeal of arbitrator Munroe’s decision reinstating the grievor (released and summarized: April 2005)...more

British Columbia Teachers’ Federation –And- Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Board of School Trustees of School District No. 68, 2006 BCSC 131

The Union's petition for judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner's decisions was successful in B.C. Supreme Court...more

Select 2007 Decisions

Select 2005 Decisions

Select 2004 Decisions

Disclaimer
The material on this website is presented for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking any action based on information provided through this website.