A tribunal has dismissed a claim by The International Union of Operating Engineers – Local 882 seeking compensation for a set of winter tires from a former employee, ruling that the contract did not require the return of the tires upon retirement.
The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal, a small claims court, rejected the union’s claim for $2,620.80, the alleged replacement value of the tires, finding that the employment contract did not include any terms requiring the employee to return the tires or reimburse the union for them.
The dispute arose after A.D. retired from his position with the union in January 2023. The union claimed that under the employment contract, A.D. was obligated to return the tires, which the union had reimbursed him for purchasing in October 2021. However, he argued that the contract did not include such a requirement.
The tribunal’s decision hinged on the interpretation of the 2022 employment contract, which detailed the benefits and entitlements for employees, including provisions related to automobile insurance and vehicle maintenance.
The key provision in the contract allowed employees to receive reimbursement for vehicle-related expenses, including gas, maintenance, and winter tires. However, as the court noted, the contract specified that winter tires would be paid for by the union once every three years and made no mention of any obligation for employees to return the tires upon the end of their employment.
“There is no term or condition within the 2022 contract that says an employee must return any tires the applicant pays for or repay the applicant if the employee’s employment ends,” the tribunal wrote in the ruling.
The tribunal found that A.D. had indeed purchased the tires in October 2021 and that the union had reimbursed him shortly thereafter. However, the tribunal concluded that the union’s failure to provide evidence of any specific agreement requiring A.D. to return or reimburse the cost of the tires upon retirement was fatal to their claim.
“The applicant has not provided evidence of any agreement it made with the respondent to pay or repay it for tires,” the decision stated. It also noted that the conduct of the parties, as demonstrated by the documentary evidence, aligned with the contract’s plain language regarding vehicle maintenance. “The parties agreed that the respondent would pay for the maintenance of vehicles including the purchase of winter tires,” it wrote.
The ruling also dismissed the union’s attempt to rely on an unsigned 2023 employment contract, which it claimed included repayment provisions for winter tires. A.D. argued that because he had not signed or renewed a contract for 2023, only the 2022 contract applied. The tribunal agreed, finding that the 2023 contract was not applicable to the case and that the 2022 contract was the operative document.
In addition to dismissing the union’s claim for the cost of the tires, the tribunal also declined to award reimbursement of tribunal fees, noting that the union had been unsuccessful in its case. Neither party had claimed any additional dispute-related expenses.
While neither party raised jurisdictional issues during the proceedings, the tribunal considered whether the claim might fall under the Employment Standards Branch’s purview. However, the tribunal found that because the union’s claim was based on contract law, it fell squarely within the tribunal’s small claims jurisdiction over debt and damages.
For more information, see The International Union of Operating Engineers – Local 882 v. David, 2024 BCCRT 900 (CanLII).
