- 8 -
2022 BCLRB 91
Later in cross-examination, Dasanjh confirmed his agreement with the statement
that the Union had no place at WCS and, contrary to his evidence in direct, agreed that
he had said as much to Ratzlaff.
Dasanjh also provided conflicting descriptions of where Ratzlaff was when the
interaction occurred. At one point in his evidence, Dasanjh asserted that he was sure
Ratzlaff was in the cab of the truck when Dasanjh approach the vehicle and that he had
to wait for Ratzlaff to climb out. Later, Dasanjh said that Ratzlaff was already outside of
the truck when he arrived at the post-trip area. When the different descriptions in his
evidence were put to him, Dasanjh said he did not recall previously saying that Ratzlaff
was inside the cab of the truck and that he had to wait for him to climb out. This later
changed again when Dasanjh describe a scenario in which Ratzlaff was in the truck and
as Dasanjh approached the truck Ratzlaff was in the process of getting out of the truck.
As noted previously, in his direct examination, Dasanjh initially said that Ratzlaff was in
the truck, fanning his breaks and he had to wait for Ratzlaff to get out of the truck, at
which time Ratzlaff asked if he should go to the union meeting.
Dasanjh's evidence about what was said in the conversation also changed in
cross-examination from what he said in direct examination. In cross-examination,
Dasanjh testified that Ratzlaff told him that he was thinking of going to the Union’s
meeting, that he was sitting on the fence, and that he was interested (i.e., Ratzlaff did
not ask if he should attend the meeting). At the conclusion of his evidence in cross-
examination, Dasanjh adamantly recanted his evidence given in direct examination, i.e.,
Ratzlaff specifically asked him if he should attend the union meeting. Rather, Dasanjh
now insisted that the exchange amounted to a series of statements by Ratzlaff (i.e., that
he was thinking of going to the union meeting, that he was sitting on the fence and that
he was interested) followed by Dasanjh telling him that the meeting was not mandatory
and there was no need for a union at WCS and that he (Dasanjh) was a good leader.
Dasanjh's evidence regarding the February 16, 2022 Incident was confused and
contradictory. At times he could not recall everything that happened or what was said,
and then he insisted that his final version of events was the truth. I found Dasanjh's
evidence regarding the February 16, 2022 interaction with Ratzlaff to be unreliable, at
best, and self-serving if viewed in a lesser light.
In contrast, I found Ratzlaff to be a credible, sincere, and honest witness. His
explanation of what occurred on February 16, 2022, was clear, and unshaken in cross-
examination. It accords with the preponderance of probabilities. It is consistent with
Dasanjh's admitted views regarding trade union representation. I accept that the
conversation set out above occurred as Ratzlaff described it. It was an attempt by
Dasanjh to find out if Ratzlaff was a union supporter by asking him if he was for or
against Dasanjh. Dasanjh was attempting to dissuade Ratzlaff from supporting the
Union. I find that Dasanjh threatened Ratzlaff when he said that if the Union came in, he
would make Ratzlaff's life rough.
Moreover, I find that Dasanjh was agitated by Ratzlaff's indication that he was on
the fence about the union. He made it clear to Ratzlaff that those who supported the