Labour Relations Board refuses CUPE's application for UBC real estate records

by Charlie Smith on August 21st, 2010 at 7:29 PM

A union representing University of British Columbia employees has failed to obtain an order forcing the university to release sensitive, real-estate related documents.

In an August 18 order, Labour Relations Board vice chair Bruce Wilkins stated that the board will adopt a new B.C. Supreme Court rule, which limits disclosure somewhat.

Wilkins directed CUPE Local 116 and UBC and several of its related entities to "discuss" his ruling to resolve any disputes concerning disclosure.

The union had sought, among other documents, copies of all agreements between UBC and UBC Properties Trust, UBC Properties Investments Ltd., and Village Gate Homes Ltd.

In addition, the union wanted an order forcing disclosure of copies of all agreements between UBC and any of the UBC companies and Metro Vancouver regarding land-use issues.

"The Union alleges an erosion of its existing bargaining rights in the matter before me," Wilkins wrote. "This is a serious and important matter under the Code."

He noted that sections 35 and 38 of the Labour Relations Code exist to "remedy the loss or erosion of bargaining rights due to corporate changes and transactions among other events".

"The Board recognizes that many of the documents concerning corporate relationships and transactions which could be used in a hearing under Sections 35 and 38 to prove or disprove a material fact are unlikely to be in the hands of an applicant union," Wilkins added.

According to Wilkins's ruling, UBC argued that the LRB should adopt the B.C. Supreme Court rule, which took effect on July 1.

The B.C. Supreme Court relies on the following language, which Wilkins endorsed for the board: "all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party of record at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, should be disclosed."

CUPE Local 116 argued that the board wasn't required to change its procedures because of a new B.C. Supreme Court rule.

Instead, the union cited an 1882 case (The Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v. The Pervuvian Guano Company), which called for more sweeping disclosure.

CUPE Local 116 also cited a 2002 case before the board involving the Health Employers Assocation of B.C., which led to the release of a large amount of documents.

The union stated that this illustrated the differences between production of documents in court and at the board.

Wilkins stated in his ruling that the Peruvian Guano approach "unnecessarily adds to the time and cost of litigation".

He also stated that the approach used in the HEABC case is not preferable to the B.C. Supreme Court rule.

"The prospect of one party expending a disproporationate amount of its resources in assembling an enormous amount of potentially relevant documents so the other party may then expend a disproporationate amount of its resources sifting through the documents is not, in my view, an ideal approach under the Code where there is clearly a better alternative," Wilkins concluded.

Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.

Comments

6 Comments

Migzy

Aug 21, 2010 at 10:34pm

umm Charlie - some context please - ie. why is the Union asking for real estate documents at the Labour Relations Board. I for one can't figure out how real estate documents have anything to do with Labour Relations besides a labour union trying to go beyond its purview of representing the interests of its members with respect to their employer.

glen p robbins

Aug 22, 2010 at 9:17am

The 'old' BC Supreme Court Rules are valid (in terms of Initiating documents and other) until September 1, 2010 --- so generally I'm not 'feeling' Wilkins there;

These contracts involve specific parties - but they also have a view to the public interest - which if it hasn't heretofore been treated as paramount - ought to be.

As I generally see it -- the Labour Relations Board (and other entities) are set up to deal in 'particularized' relationships.

The BC public - including those residing in UBC or who may generally be impacted by these agreements has a right in my view to know what is in them --we are sick society because we employ bureaucracies which make secret that which should be open and transparent (we also enable and do not sufficiently discourage an electoral-----system where 'sick' type elected personalities govern).

CUPE may well have an interest in the information considered - hence their plea to the Labour Relations Board.

Although I don't know that it is Mr. Wilkins place to assert how parties ought to expend their resources (in CUPE's case - it would be their members), I believe if the public has an interest in the matter than CUPE should Petition the BC Supreme Court for an Order for Release of the documents - and do so on the basis of their own unions interest and the public interest--as members of the Union are also members of the public. (This could lead to opening up of 3P's -- the most damaging legacy of Campbell's overall afront to democracy in the province).

Frankly, I think our courts don't 'practice what they preach' - are alleged to exist as part of the democratic process apparently (see: recent CJ Bauman decision), and ought to reflect this better in its 'sparkling new rules' so that British Columbians can see if the court can walk the talk. (This may be hoping for too much when we consider that unnamed - unknown anonymous filing clerks can sign off on Court Orders for tens of thousand of dollars---------------------------------- willy nilly).

Where ANY public interest exists -- documents should see the light of day.

{Personally, I'm filing under the old rules this week---we'll see if information civil filings and Chambers --- and Rules is consistent with its actions eh?} ---

I will send my filing to the regular media - who can make it public or not--

AndySw

Aug 22, 2010 at 10:08am

I agree 100% with Migzy. Why would CUPE 116 and not other UBC Unions be pushing for access to UBC Property Documents?

Charlie Smith

Aug 22, 2010 at 12:45pm

Migzy and AndySw,
I added paragraphs six, seven, and eight to the article explaining that the union is alleging loss of its bargaining rights, and the documents are being sought in connection with this claim.

Thank you for raising this question.
Charlie Smith

tim.

Aug 22, 2010 at 12:50pm

my understanding is that CUPE 116 represents outdoor workers and plant operations at UBC. UBC Properties Trust is responsible for construction of new buildings, hence the implication for CUPE 116.

the fact here is that UBC Properties Trust is a branch of UBC yet UBC Properties Trust refuses to disclose any of their documents despite having hundreds of millions of dollars flow through.