Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board over union dispatch and fair representation disputes was central to the decision.

• The plaintiff’s challenge to his “non-dispatchable” status involved both labour and privacy law claims.

• Alleged unauthorized disclosure of personal and academic information by BCIT formed part of the plaintiff’s claims.

• The relationship between privacy allegations and union dispatch practices was examined to determine the proper forum.

• The test for interlocutory injunction, including serious question, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, was applied.

• Costs were awarded to the successful parties following dismissal of the plaintiff’s application.

Facts of the case

Pawel Janik, the plaintiff, applied for an interlocutory injunction against Ironworkers Local 97 Apprenticeship and Training Society (“Local 97”) and British Columbia Institute of Technology (“BCIT”). He sought to restrain the union and its associated training society from relying on any personal or academic information about him received from BCIT, to require the union to remove its “non-dispatchable” designation for him, and to require the union to commence dispatching him in accordance with usual union practices. Mr. Janik alleged that the “non-dispatchable” designation was caused by the unauthorized release of his personal or private information by BCIT and claimed breaches of the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Information Protection Act. He also alleged a common law tort or torts to similar effect.

Mr. Janik had attended apprenticeship training at BCIT in 2023 under the sponsorship of a non-union employer and was apparently qualified in the trade of reinforcing ironworker as of March 2024. He alleged that the union obtained a performance report from his training program at BCIT and, based on that record, designated him as “non-dispatchable.” He claimed this designation caused him to lose employment opportunities, including a specific position for which he was otherwise qualified, and that the designation would continue to interfere with his employment prospects. Mr. Janik also acknowledged that he had filed a complaint against the union with the Labour Relations Board (LRB) based on his allegation of an unfair or unjust “non-dispatchable” designation, pursuant to section 12 of the Labour Relations Code.

The union submitted that Mr. Janik failed to meet the required elements for an interlocutory injunction and that the subject matter of his motion fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LRB. The union’s records indicated that Mr. Janik was a former probationary worker who never advanced beyond that status, had not submitted required monthly work reports, and had complaints against him regarding attendance, punctuality, and an incident involving another worker. The union ceased dispatching Mr. Janik in or around October 2022, and later, in June 2023, Mr. Janik requested a payout from his training trust fund, which the union interpreted as an acknowledgment that employment was no longer being offered to him. The union also noted that Mr. Janik commenced an ironworker training program at BCIT through a non-union employer in August 2023, which was an additional basis for his “non-dispatchable” status. In January 2024, Mr. Janik inquired about returning to work with the union, but his request was denied due to poor job performance as a probationary worker.

BCIT attended the hearing because the plaintiff sought costs against it, but no other relief was sought against BCIT on the application. The application against BCIT was dismissed with costs to BCIT in any event of the cause.

Discussion of policy terms and statutory provisions

The court’s analysis focused on the Labour Relations Code, specifically sections 12 (duty of fair representation), 136 (exclusive jurisdiction of the LRB), and 137 (limits on court jurisdiction). The court determined that the essential character of the dispute was the union’s referral of Mr. Janik to employment, which is expressly captured in section 12 of the Code. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s dispatch status was a matter that related to “the referral of persons to employment,” and that the LRB had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The court found that the plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief was essentially about his dispatch status, a complaint already before the LRB.

Outcome and ruling

The court held that the essence of the plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief was his dispatch status, which was already the subject of a complaint before the LRB and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LRB. As a result, the court found there was no serious question to be tried and dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an injunction. Costs were awarded to the union and BCIT, but no specific monetary amount was set out in the decision; the successful parties are entitled to costs, with the quantum to be determined later or according to standard procedures.