A former unionized transit operator at Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) has had his claim against the company, and his union local, for wrongful termination, violation of human rights, and failure in duty of fair representation dismissed.
The worker, GN, filed his case in the Supreme Court of British Columba, naming both CMBC and his union — Local 111 of Unifor — as defendants.
The Court found that GN’s notice of civil claim did not set out a reasonable cause of action, and that it did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of his claim. Consequently, both applications to strike and dismiss the claim, brought forward by CMBC and Unifor, were granted.
The Court’s detailed analysis highlighted key jurisdictional issues, underscoring the established legal principles governing labour disputes in Canada.
“(GN’s) notice of civil claim does not set out a reasonable cause of action, and that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of (his) claim,” the Court said. That’s because the matters raised by GN, including wrongful dismissal and unfair representation, fell under the purview of a labour arbitrator or administrative tribunals, not the Court.
Wrongful dismissal
It noted that his claim for wrongful dismissal belonged before a labour arbitrator, pursuant to the Labour Relations Code. That’s because there is no dispute he was a unionized employee of CMBC and his terms of employment were the subject of a collective agreement.
Breach of employment standards
GN alleged that CMBC violated the Employment Standards Act.
The Court agreed with the employer that such claims can only be made to the Director of Employment Standards, or a labour arbitrator.
Duty of fair representation
GN also said Unifor unfairly represented him, and that he should be compensated accordingly.
The union pointed out that such relief can only be sought before the Labour Relations Board, under the Code, and the Court agreed. It did note there is an exception in situations where there is a risk of of immediate danger of serious injury to an individual or physical damage to property.
GN sought to have the exception applied, but the Court refused.
“Neither his own affidavit, nor those tendered by the defendants, contain any evidence that (he) is in immediate danger of serious injury or that there is any property at risk stemming from acts or omissions of Unifor in respect of its representation of (him),” the Court said. “In the absence of evidence of such emergencies, I can see no justification for this Court to assume its exceptional authority… to address a matter that the Legislature clearly intended to be dealt with by the LRB.”
Human rights violation
GN alleged that both Unifor and CMBC violated his human rights.
The employer argued that such relief can only be sought by GN before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Court agreed.
“It is beyond dispute that a claim for relief in respect of an alleged Human Rights Code violation, including one in relation to an alleged wrongful dismissal due to disability, cannot be made before the Court,” it said.
Costs were awarded to Unifor on Scale B. CMBC did not seek a costs award, so none was granted by the Court.
For more information, see Nagra v Coast Mountain Bus Company (TransLink), 2023 BCSC 2312 (CanLII)
