B.C. Community Benefits Agreement back in court

The province's Community Benefits Agreement is once again before a B.C. court, with those against the agreement seeking to overturn a lower court ruling that their challenge ought to be heard before the BC Labour Relations Board.

The Court of Appeal will decide on whether the BC Supreme Court or Labour Relations Board is the appropriate forum to hear the concerns a coalition of contractors and unions have about the agreement.

article continues below

A coalition of contractors and construction unions has this week resumed its legal challenge of the provincial government’s Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) – a framework intended to ensure local hiring, priority hiring and apprenticeship training on designated public infrastructure projects.

The Independent Contractors and Business Association (ICBA) and others argue that part of that plan – the requirement that workers must join one of 19 unions – violates workers’ Charter freedom of association.

Earlier this year, the ICBA and 18 petitioners sought to bring their Charter challenge before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The court rejected claim, and referred the matter to the BC Labour Relations Board.

This week, the coalition is challenging the BC Supreme Court ruling before the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

At issue is where the coalition’s Charter challenge should be heard.

“There is no issue in this case about whether this arrangement … breaches the labour code. It’s accepted that it doesn’t breach the labour code. The issue solely is whether the minister’s decision to require workers to work under that arrangement is a lawful exercise of her statutory authority under the Transportation Act,” argued the appellants’ counsel Peter Gall on Thursday.

“There can be no doubt or dispute… that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of the minister’s decision under the Transportation Act,” he said.

The coalition has renewed its campaign against the province’s CBA. It argues that four public works projects built under the agreement have collectively seen an additional $384 million in cost overruns.

Proponents of the CBA argue that having such a framework in place can mitigate risks and costs by establishing clear policies around wages and hiring, and by eliminating the possibility of strikes and lockouts.

The matter is before the Court of Appeal Thursday and Friday. At the time of writing, the respondents – the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Attorney General and the Allied Infrastructure and Related Construction Council of B.C. – had not yet had an opportunity to respond in court. 

© Copyright Alaska Highway News

Read more from the Business in Vancouver

Comments

NOTE: To post a comment you must have an account with at least one of the following services: Disqus, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ You may then login using your account credentials for that service. If you do not already have an account you may register a new profile with Disqus by first clicking the "Post as" button and then the link: "Don't have one? Register a new profile".

The Alaska Highway News welcomes your opinions and comments. We do not allow personal attacks, offensive language or unsubstantiated allegations. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher, or see our Terms and Conditions.

comments powered by Disqus
Alaska Highway People's Choice 2020

Popular News

Lowest Gas Prices in Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson, Fort St John, Tumbler Ridge
British Columbia Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com

Community Event Calendar


Find out what's happening in your community and submit your own local events.