Logo en Global Donate now

Online Database: Working for the abolition of legalized migrant enslavement through information sharing


Document Details


Print and save


United Mexican States v. British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2015 BCCA 32




Court of Appeal for British Columbia


Certain Mexican workers in a union representing agricultural workers applied to the British Columbia Labour Relations Board to cancel the union’s certification, following a representation vote. The union filed a complaint with the Board, arguing, inter alia, that Mexico had improperly interfered with the representation vote, within the meaning of s. 33(6)(b) of the Labour Relations Code, such that the vote was unlikely to disclose the true wishes of the union employees. Mexico raised a preliminary objection before the Board, arguing that the Board was barred by the doctrine of state immunity, as codified in s. 3(1) of the State Immunity Act, from adjudicating in relation to its conduct and was therefore prohibited from making a finding that it had engaged in “improper interference”. Held: Appeal dismissed. A finding of “improper interference” under s. 33(6)(b) of the Code does not amount to an exercise of jurisdiction over the individual or organization that engaged in improper interference. That individual or organization is neither directly nor indirectly impleaded by such a finding. The doctrine of state immunity therefore does not apply.


United Mexican States v. British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2015 BCCA 32

File Attachments


Economic sectors

Agriculture and horticulture workers and General farm workers

Target groups

(Im)migrants workers, Researchers, and Unions

Geographical focuses

México and British Columbia

Spheres of activity