Détails du document

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.