A BC Court of Appeal tribunal ruled it did not have jurisdiction to hear a forestry and construction company’s bid to overturn a BC Labour Relations Board decision against the use of surveillance cameras.
Rehn Enterprises Ltd., part of the Kamloops-headquartered Roga Group, which has a location in Prince George, lost a review in January of an arbitrator’s decision that awarded fallers $4,000 each for breach of privacy.
At issue was the 2023 installation of dash cameras in the company’s four-wheel drive pickups in Campbell River, where Rehn is a falling contractor for Western Forest Products.
The company argued cab-facing dashcams were a safety measure, used for monitoring road conditions and distractions, such as eating, texting, smoking and horseplay.
But arbitrator Jacquie de Aguayo agreed with United Steelworkers (USW), Local 1-1937 and found the company’s purpose was primarily to watch the conduct of workers.
After a March 21 hearing, Justice Bruce Butler wrote the April 9 decision to dismiss the Rehn appeal. Justices Gail Dickson and Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten concurred.
Rehn argued the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the basis for the decision was the interpretation of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). USW said the arbitrator’s decision was tied to the collective agreement, so it was beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
“The basis of the arbitrator’s decision involved applying a settled legal framework from arbitral law to the specific factual context of the workplace, which was not ‘unrelated to a collective agreement, labour relations or related determinations of fact’ as required by the modified test under section 100 of the Labour Relations Code.”
The appeal jurisdiction clause that states the Court of Appeal may review a decision or award.
Ultimately, Butler decided the appeal fell within the LRB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
“While the award concerns privacy interests under PIPA, a matter of general law, the basis of the award is directly tied to labour relations and related determinations of fact.”
Butler’s ruling suggested Rehn should have sought judicial review with the B.C. Supreme Court instead of going straight to the Court of Appeal.
“Although the Code creates two possible avenues of review, pursuit of the appeal to this court following a final decision of the board raises questions about the waste of judicial resources and the prospect of inconsistent results.”
