24-kilometre road access strictly controlled by employer
After it was denied access to members at a remote northern British Columbia mine, a union took its case to arbitration.
Teamsters, Local 213 officials wanted to regularly visit employees of Coeur Silvertip Holdings mine, located eight kilometres south of the border with Yukon. The closest community is Watson Lake, Yukon, which is about 140 kilometres away.
The union wanted more regular access to members of the bargaining unit, but the request was denied by the employer.
The union used the B.C. Labour Relations Code section 7 as the basis for its argument, which says: “If employees reside on their employer’s property or on property to which the employer or another person has the right to control access or entry, the employer or other person must, on the board’s direction, permit a representative authorized in writing by a trade union to enter the property to attempt to persuade the employees to join a trade union and, if the trade union acquires bargaining rights, after that to enter the property to conduct business of the trade union.”
A 24-kilometre access road was strictly controlled by the company, and cellular signals did not reach the job site, necessitating the union’s need to have more contact with workers.
Only persons who were authorized by the company were allowed to use the road, which the union argued meant the company was unfairly restricting the union.
Workers were housed at the mine site during 14-day shifts, and travelled home during the subsequent 14 days off.
The mine employees lived in dorms with “paper-thin” walls, which was another reason the union wanted to visit workers — but not in their rooms as this would most likely disturb other sleeping workers.
In the past, union officials stayed at Whitehorse in a hotel, and then made the 345-kilometre trek to the mine to visit workers.
But the union asked to be provided with lodging for three specific days in February 2018 so it could engage with the resident employees, which was much easier than contacing them at their homes.
The company said the union should not be given constant and unfettered access to workers as this would unfairly disrupt its daily operations. It said there were two shop stewards who worked regular shifts, and they were able to provide workers access to the union.
If the union was given its way, argued the employer, it would be granted unequal access to all of the workers during their down time, which didn’t happen on non-live-in sites.
Arbitrator Jennifer Glougie disagreed and ordered the employer to allow three union representatives to the site on three different periods, for three days each time.
“The nearest community with hotel availability, Watson Lake, is approximately 140 kilometres away. It would be inappropriate to require the union to commute that distance given the hours for which the union is granted access to the dining facility,” she said.
Despite the employer’s argument, “I am not persuaded on the evidence that the presence of three union representatives will be unduly disruptive such that access should be limited to only one organizer as the employer suggests,” said Glougie.
Because of the thin walls, the arbitrator ordered the company to provide the television room for union interactions with employees.
“I am satisfied that allowing union representatives to meet with employees in private rooms in the dorms would be disruptive to the employer’s noise policy. For that reason, I am not prepared to allow union organizers to meet in private rooms in the dorms.”
Reference: Coeur Silvertip Holdings and Teamsters, Local 213. Jennifer Glougie — arbitrator. Robert Sider for the employer. E. Casey McCabe for the employee. Jan. 26, 2018. 2018 CarswellBC 274
