Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute arose from employer’s use of rear-facing dash cams that recorded employees during travel time in company vehicles.

• Central question involved whether the surveillance was a reasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement.

• Arbitrator applied a contextual reasonableness framework balancing safety interests against privacy rights, guided by the Kadant decision.

• Determination hinged on whether employees were “on duty” while traveling, impacting the expectation of privacy.

• Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction under s. 100 of the Labour Relations Code, as the dispute was rooted in labour relations.

• Procedural critique addressed the employer’s parallel appeals and emphasized the preferred route through reconsideration and judicial review.

Background and Facts of the Case
The case involved a dispute between a tree falling contractor and a union representing hand fallers who commuted daily to remote logging sites using company vehicles. In early 2023, the employer installed dash cameras inside these vehicles, including rear-facing cameras that also recorded audio. These recordings were analyzed by a third-party service, Samsara Inc., using AI technology to flag safety events.

The employer stated that the purpose of the cameras was to promote safety and manage employee conduct. However, the union filed a grievance, claiming that the use of in-cab cameras during travel time was an unjustified invasion of privacy, given the personal nature of employee conduct during that period. The grievance was submitted to arbitration.

Arbitration Findings and Legal Framework
The arbitrator accepted that while company vehicles are considered part of the workplace, the time employees spent commuting was more akin to off-duty time due to the informal and personal nature of activities. She emphasized the employees’ high expectation of privacy in that context. Applying the Kadant framework, the arbitrator assessed whether the surveillance was reasonably implemented, whether there were alternative options, and the legitimacy of the employer’s safety concerns.

Although the employer demonstrated general safety interests, the arbitrator found that the primary purpose of the surveillance—to modify behavior and investigate potential incidents—did not have a sufficient connection to real-time safety risks during travel. The failure to consider less intrusive alternatives and to provide adequate notice under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) further supported her conclusion. She ruled the surveillance unreasonable and awarded general damages of $4,000 per employee for breach of privacy.

Jurisdictional Challenge and Parallel Proceedings
After the arbitration award, the employer simultaneously sought review by the Labour Relations Board under s. 99 of the Labour Relations Code and appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal under s. 100, arguing the arbitrator’s application of PIPA involved a matter of general law. The Labour Relations Board asserted jurisdiction and dismissed the application on its merits. The employer did not request reconsideration of that decision.

In the Court of Appeal, the employer argued that the privacy findings involved statutory interpretation of PIPA and thus qualified as general law reviewable by the court. However, the court emphasized that its jurisdiction under s. 100 had been narrowed by legislative amendments in 2019 and now only applied to general legal issues unrelated to labour relations or factual determinations tied to the workplace context.

Court’s Decision and Reasoning
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the arbitrator’s decision did not involve novel interpretation of PIPA, but rather the application of settled legal principles to a labour-specific factual context. The analysis was deeply rooted in the workplace relationship, including consideration of management rights and employee expectations under the collective agreement. Therefore, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board.

The court also addressed the procedural inefficiency of pursuing dual proceedings and warned against appealing to the Court of Appeal after a final Board decision without first exhausting reconsideration or judicial review. It advised that future parties should seek review through the established administrative pathway to maintain procedural integrity and avoid conflicting outcomes.

The appeal was ultimately quashed.