In Rehn Enterprises Ltd. v. United Steelworkers, Local 1-1937, 2025 BCCA 116, released on April 9, Justice G. Bruce Butler found that the Labour Relations Board had jurisdiction to review an arbitrator’s decision that the installation of surveillance cameras in a company’s trucks was not reasonable due to concerns of infringement of employee privacy.
“The decision acknowledges the jurisdiction of the B.C.C.A. to review arbitration decisions was further narrowed by the 2019 amendment to s. 100 of the Code, which qualify ‘general law’ by adding ‘unrelated to a collective agreement, labour relations, labour relations or related determinations of fact,’” said counsel for the respondent union, Sandra Banister of Banister and Company.
Sections 99 and 100 of the Labour Relations Code specify the types of arbitral awards subject to review by the Labour Relations Board and those eligible for review by the Court of Appeal.
In early 2023, the appellant, Rehn Enterprises Ltd., a tree-falling contractor, began installing surveillance cameras inside the cabs of company vehicles.
The company installed forward-facing cameras as well as rear‑facing cameras, which showed the inside of the cab, including drivers and passengers and also recorded audio.
The move impacted employees who generally spend between two and three hours a day in company vehicles travelling to and from their worksites.
In March 2023, the respondent union, United Steelworkers, Local 1-1937, filed a grievance concerning the use of the dash cams in company vehicles. The grievance was referred to arbitration.
The arbitrator observed that under s. 89 of the Code, she had the authority to consider and enforce the substantive rights and obligations in the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) as if they formed part of the collective agreement.
The arbitrator concluded that the use of the rear-facing dash cams was unreasonable, and rejected the appellant’s argument that they were necessary to collect evidence about general road safety.
Rehn filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal but also applied for a review of the award by the Labour Relations Board.
The appellant asked the board to defer consideration of its application for review of the arbitration award pending the resolution of its appeal.
However, the board dismissed the deferral application, determining that it had exclusive jurisdiction to review the award and dismissing Rehn’s review application on the merits.
Addressing the appeal before the Court of Appeal, Justice Butler noted that a 2019 amendment to s.100 had restricted the court’s jurisdiction narrowly to matters of general law “unrelated to a collective agreement, labour relations or related determinations of fact.”
The judge cited Health Employers Assn. of B.C. v. B.C. Nurses’ Union, 2005 BCCA 343, in which the B.C. Court of Appeal outlined a test for determining whether the review of a labour arbitrator’s award fell under the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the board.
Under the three-part test, the Court of Appeal only has jurisdiction to review arbitral awards that are based on a matter of general law, which does not raise a question concerning the principles of labour relations, expressed in the Labour Relations Code or another statute.
Justice Butler held that the test needed to be modified to reflect the language in the amended provision.
“The language of the 2019 Amendment both reflects the jurisprudence … and attempts to clarify and further narrow the limited jurisdiction of this Court. It signals a legislative intent to grant the Board jurisdiction in all but the most exceptional of cases,” the judge wrote.
He held that the court only has jurisdiction to review an arbitral award that is a matter of general law, which is unrelated not only to labour relations but also to any determinations of fact tied to labour relations.
Applying the modified test, the judge found that the appeal in the case at bar clearly fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board.
“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,” the judge wrote.
The court observed that the core issue in the case was whether the dash cam surveillance during travel time was a reasonable exercise of management’s rights, having regard to the appellant’s stated safety purposes balanced against the employees’ privacy interests.
The judge observed that the arbitrator’s analysis was heavily steeped in the facts within a labour relations context.
“For instance, the arbitrator’s conclusion that the Fallers had a high expectation of privacy was based on evidence regarding the nature of the Fallers’ work, as well as her factual findings about the type of conversations and activities which took place while the Fallers were travelling to and from worksites,” the judge wrote.
He concluded that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 100 of the Code.
The court also observed the ss. 99 and 100 of the Code establish mutually exclusive, non-concurrent jurisdictions for the court and the board on applications to review decisions of labour arbitrators.
Justice Butler observed that even though the Code creates two possible avenues of review, pursuit of an appeal to the Court of Appeal following a final decision of the board raised questions about the waste of judicial resources and the prospect of inconsistent results.
“[I]t is my view that should a similar circumstance arise in the future, where the Board accepts jurisdiction and determines the review on its merits, it would be preferable for the party who sought review to pursue its administrative remedies by seeking a reconsideration of the Board’s decision,” the judge wrote.
Counsel for the appellant was Daniel Draht of Kidston Helm Ross Lawyers LLP. He was not immediately available for comment.
If you have any information, story ideas, or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.