2022 BCLRB 91  
(the "Employer" or "WCS")  
LOCAL NO. 115  
(the "Union" or "Local 115")  
J. Najeeb Hassan, Vice-Chair and  
Lorene A. Novakowski, for the Employer  
John MacTavish, for the Union  
April 4, 5, 6, and 12, 2022  
August 12, 2022  
- 2 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
The Union alleges the Employer engaged in "a concerted anti-union campaign"  
and that its conduct breached Sections 5(1)(c), 6(1), 6(3)(d), and 9 of the Labour  
Relations Code (the "Code"). It asserts this campaign occurred after the Board, in 2022  
BCLRB 13, ordered the Employer to reinstate the Union's inside organizer, Derek  
Anderson, in January 2022.  
The anti-union campaign, says the Union, involved "statements, enquiries and  
threats" made by the founder and owner of the Employer, Allan Dasanjh. The Union  
also says Dasanjh engaged in an "angry confrontation with Union organizers on March  
8, 2022", shunned employees who supported the Union, sent "misleading and coercive  
written communications to employees", and condoned other anti-union conduct by its  
The Union seeks a declaration that the Employer breached the unfair labour  
practice provisions of the Code, and an order, pursuant to Section 14(4.1) of the Code,  
certifying the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of all employees  
employed by the Employer, except office and sales staff.  
The Employer disputes the Union's version of events. It says the application is  
nothing more than an attempt by the Union to gain representation through Board order  
because the employees "have no interest in a union", and the Union is incapable of  
convincing the employees to unionize.  
The Union and Employer filed lengthy and detailed written submissions, each  
setting out what they believed the underlying facts of the case to be. I have reviewed  
their submissions fully and note that they have very different views of what occurred and  
what the evidence disclosed. What follows are my findings of fact based on the  
evidence that was before me.  
The Employer operates a waste management business. It provides services to  
customers in the Lower Mainland. Its headquarters and a major part of its operations  
are located at 51 Glacier Street, Coquitlam, B.C. ("Glacier Street"). Glacier Street  
includes a mechanical shop, an inventory of various vehicles, a wash bay, parking lots,  
and an office/administration building. Most of WCS's employees work at and from  
Glacier Street. The Employer also has a North Vancouver location, at which  
approximately 15 employees work.  
WCS has been in operation since 1993, founded by Dasanjh. He is the sole  
shareholder and testified that he has complete control over all aspects of the company if  
he chose to exercise it. Dasanjh started the business with one used garbage truck. It  
- 3 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
was apparent from Dasanjh's evidence that he is extremely proud of the business that  
he has built. He considers WCS an extension of himself, something that is discussed  
more fully below.  
WCS has grown from a single truck to approximately 65 trucks. Many of the  
employees have been with WCS for 10-20 years. The employees work as drivers,  
mechanics and in container maintenance. The Employer also employs dispatchers and  
other office and sales staff. WCS employs approximately 130-135 employees, of whom  
roughly 100 are hourly.  
The Employer utilizes trucks with different license requirements. Employees are  
hired for the specific type of work required of the Driver position, requiring a particular  
type of licence.  
Employees generally start working from 4:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. They do not have  
a set end time for their shifts, generally working between 8 to 11 hours/day or longer, if  
During the proceeding, I took a view of the Employer's operation, consistent with  
the principles set out in Vancouver General Hospital, BCLRB No. B081/1993 (Leave for  
reconsideration of IRC No. C179/91). I accept, based on the uncontradicted evidence of  
several witnesses and from my own observations while taking a view, that the works  
yard at Glacier Street (the "Yard") can be busy and at times can be noisy. However, I  
did not find it difficult to overhear conversations that were taking place in the vicinity.  
The Yard includes a large washing bay (the "Wash Bay"), a mechanical shop  
(the "Shop"), an area where pre-trip and post-trip inspections are carried out adjacent to  
the Wash Bay, a large office building (the "Offices") with visitor parking on one side and  
employee parking and company vehicle parking on the other side of the building.  
The Yard is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac has one driveway  
to visitor parking adjacent to the Offices, another that provides access to the Yard and  
other driveways that lead to unrelated businesses or property that the Employer has  
rented to store equipment. It is not unusual for trucks, either the Employer's or from  
neighbouring businesses to use the cul-de-sac in front of the Yard to turn around. The  
cul-de-sac is not particularly large. In several places in the cul-de-sac, there are "No  
Parking" signs.  
Dasanjh described WCS's corporate values as ensuring the Employer and its  
employees are connected, accountable, work safely, have a Can-Do attitude, are  
customer focused, and are respectful. The Employer promotes those values by posting  
floor-to-ceiling signage in its hallways where the drivers may congregate, on its monitors  
in the drivers' lounge, and on postcards in each truck. Each month, the Employer  
promotes one of the values, as a reminder of their importance. Dasanjh explained that  
by the Employer making accountability a core corporate values, it was seeking to  
ensure that everyone was accountable for their actions. The promotion of respect as a  
- 4 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
fundamental value, Dasanjh explained, requires that everyone be treated with dignity  
and value.  
Despite these stated values, the evidence demonstrates that there are different  
expectations for persons in authority regarding the need to treat everyone with dignity  
and respect, particularly Dan Ratzlaff, Derrek Anderson and representatives of the  
Union, and the need to ensure that every employee is connected.  
The February 3, 2022 Incident  
The Union alleges that on February 3, 2022, Dasanjh had a conversation with  
one of his employees, Ratzlaff, which constituted a violation of Section 6(1), 6(3)(d) and  
9 of the Code. There is no dispute that there was a conversation between Ratzlaff and  
Dasanjh on February 3, 2022. However, I heard different versions of what transpired.  
Ratzlaff works for WCS as a Roll Off Driver. He has been employed with WCS  
since July 26, 2021, having previously worked for a much smaller company. Ratzlaff  
almost always operates a Roll Off Truck. However, shortly after Anderson was  
reinstated, because Ratzlaff was injured, he was assigned to help another driver (a  
Front End driver), riding in the passenger's seat. When Ratzlaff returned from his route  
on February 3, 2022, he encountered Anderson doing a post-trip inspection of  
Anderson's vehicle, just outside the Wash Bay.  
Ratzlaff was talking to Anderson. Dasanjh arrived while this was happening. It is  
at this point that Ratzlaff and Dasanjh testified to different versions of events regarding  
the conversation.  
What follows is Ratzlaff's version of events. Ratzlaff testified that Dasanjh  
approached him from the front of his truck, unexpectedly and gave him a fist pump, in  
jovial way, as he has done before. Anderson had his back to Ratzlaff and Dasanjh.  
When Dasanjh noticed Anderson, he signalled to Ratzlaff to come away from Anderson  
and said, "Don't talk to him, leave him alone". Ratzlaff testified that Dasanjh was close  
to him when he was speaking to him, and the engine of Anderson's truck was not  
running at the time. Nor was there other noise in the area that inhibited his ability to  
hear. When it was put to Ratzlaff in cross-examination that he was mistaken and that  
Dasanjh did not say "Don't talk to him", Ratzlaff categorically disagreed and was  
adamant there was no possibility that he misunderstood Dasanjh.  
Dasanjh gave two different descriptions of what occurred on February 3, 2022  
regarding a conversation between himself and Ratzlaff. In direct examination and  
initially in cross-examination, Dasanjh said that he had no recollection of speaking to  
Ratzlaff about Anderson on February 3, 2022. He testified that he never told Ratzlaff not  
to talk to Anderson.  
In cross-examination, when it was pointed out to Dasanjh that the Employer's  
response submission expressly stated that he did have a conversation with Ratzlaff on  
February 3, 2022, Dasanjh changed his evidence and said that he did have a  
- 5 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
conversation with Ratzlaff, but that he didn't recall the specifics. He said that he  
acknowledged Ratzlaff and continued through the yard to do what he was planning to  
do, as he was busy. He also testified that Ratzlaff's truck engine was running. Dasanjh  
testified that the truck Ratzlaff was driving that day was a Roll Off Truck.  
The Employer's records indicate that the truck that Ratzlaff was driving and on  
which he was conducting a post-trip inspection was not a Roll Off Truck. When this  
inconsistency in his evidence was put to him, Dasanjh acknowledged that he actually  
had no recollection of speaking to Ratzlaff on February 3, 2022.  
Given the inconsistencies in Dasanjh's evidence and his ultimate  
acknowledgment that he could not remember speaking to Ratzlaff on February 3, 2022,  
I accept Ratzlaff's version of what occurred. I find that when Dasanjh saw Ratzlaff with  
Anderson, Dasanjh called Ratzlaff aside and told him: "Don't talk to him. Leave him  
alone.", referring to Anderson. This occurred a relatively short time after the Employer  
had reinstated Anderson, because of an order by the Board following a determination  
that the Employer committed an unfair labour practice by firing Anderson for anti-union  
In addition to Dasanjh's comments about Anderson, Dasanjh engaged in a more  
subtle form of messaging to Ratzlaff about how he felt about Anderson. When Dasanjh  
approached Ratzlaff, Anderson was only a short distance away, completing the post-trip  
inspection of his own vehicle. Dasanjh did not greet Anderson or even acknowledge him  
when Dasanjh asked Ratzlaff to step away and speak with him. Prior to Anderson's  
termination and his subsequent reinstatement, Dasanjh, as he did with his other  
employees, always acknowledged Anderson when he was nearby.  
February 11, 2022 Keying of Anderson's Truck  
On or about February 11, 2022, Anderson discovered that his personal vehicle  
had been vandalized. Someone had used a key to scratch the side of his truck.  
Anderson believed that it had happened at work and reported the incident to Dave  
Magnusson, a manager. When WCS's General Manager, Jeremy Crawford, became  
aware of the fact that Anderson's truck had been damaged and the claim that it  
happened on WCS's property, Crawford asked Magnusson to look into it and left it with  
Magnusson to do so.  
Magnusson was upset about the damage to Anderson's truck. However, he told  
Anderson that the security cameras did not record, so there was nothing that could be  
done about it. Anderson reported the incident to the RCMP, but not to ICBC. A few  
weeks later another employee known to be supportive of the Union had his vehicle  
similarly vandalized.  
February 16th, 2022 Incident  
Prior to February 16, 2022, Ratzlaff had a good working relationship with  
Dasanjh. The evidence established that Dasanjh is generally a jovial person, who  
- 6 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
routinely greets and acknowledges his staff when he sees them. It is part of how he tries  
to stay connected with them and build morale.  
An example of Dasanjh's approach to interacting with his staff is evident from the  
following experience that Ratzlaff had shortly after being hired to work at WCS. Dasanjh  
sent an email welcoming Ratzlaff to the company. On his first day of orientation,  
Dasanjh was the first person Ratzlaff met. Dasanjh greeted him with a "fist pump" and a  
personal welcome to the team. Dasanjh spent the next 10 or 15 minutes speaking with  
Ratzlaff. Only later did Ratzlaff learn that Dasanjh was the owner of the business. It  
impressed Ratzlaff that the owner engaged with the employees that way and he felt that  
he was part of the WCS family because of it. Dasanjh took an interest in Ratzlaff's  
children's soccer and other things that Ratzlaff was doing outside of work. As a result of  
being treated this way, Ratzlaff felt that their relationship was more akin to a friendship  
than of a boss and an employee, though they did not socialize outside of work. The "fist-  
pump" mentioned on Ratzlaff's first day was not an uncommon occurrence and not  
restricted to Ratzlaff. Dasanjh was known to shout across the parking lot to  
acknowledge his staff and ask them how they were doing.  
This changed for Ratzlaff on February 16, 2022. On that day, Ratzlaff was in the  
post-trip area next to the Wash Bay again, near the end of his shift. The plan for the day  
was for Ratzlaff to work on a Front End Truck with the same employee he had been  
assisting on February 3, 2022. However, due to staffing issues, he operated another  
employee's Roll Off Truck. Ratzlaff was completing his post-trip inspection when  
Dasanjh and Ratzlaff had another interaction. Again, Ratzlaff and Dasanjh gave  
different versions of what occurred.  
What follows is Ratzlaff's version. He testified that the engine of his truck was off,  
as he had just inspected the engine fan. Dasanjh came suddenly around the hood of his  
truck and an exchange along the following lines occurred:  
Dan, are you for me or against?  
I'm always with you.  
I mean about the union. Are you for me or against?  
I am on the fence.  
The union has no place at WCS. He's gotta go  
(pointing to Anderson's truck) and so does the  
What is the downside of the union?  
If the union comes in, I'm gonna make your life  
rough. I'm a good owner:  
Of course, you are.  
- 7 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
Well, I can't be if the union comes in.  
Ratzlaff testified that when he told Dasanjh he was on the fence about the union,  
Dasanjh became agitated and at the end of their conversation told Ratzlaff that he  
should go back to the company he came from, as he walked away from Ratzlaff. After  
the conversation, Ratzlaff felt that his job was in danger.  
Ratzlaff testified that the conversation was lengthy and took place in an area  
where another employee, Roger Beaudette, could observe it. After the exchange with  
Dasanjh, Ratzlaff was flustered and went into the Office to seek out Magnusson.  
Ratzlaff testified that, unlike Dasanjh, Magnusson spoke to him respectfully and they  
discussed, what he described as, the upside and the downside of unions. Despite this,  
Ratzlaff felt that he had been "pushed off the fence" by Dasanjh about whether to  
support the union. He was upset that he had been disrespected and not honoured by  
Dasanjh gave various narratives regarding the February 16, 2022 Incident in his  
evidence. He testified in direct that Ratzlaff was performing a post-trip inspection on a  
truck with the hood up and with the engine running, and that he was fanning his brakes.  
He said that because it was noisy in the area, he had to talk in a louder tone. As to the  
content of the conversation, in direct examination, Dasanjh initially said that he did not  
recall what Ratzlaff said to him that day; but, later in direct, he gave specific details of  
the conversation.  
Dasanjh testified that Ratzlaff asked him if he should attend the union meeting  
and he, Dasanjh, said it was not a mandatory meeting and "It doesn't have to be like  
this. I'm a good leader." According to Dasanjh in his direct examination, that was the  
extent of his engagement with Ratzlaff that day. It was a short conversation and he just  
walked away and carried on with his business. In explaining why Ratzlaff gave a  
different version of events than he, Dasanjh surmised that due to the noise in the area  
Ratzlaff may have misinterpreted what he said because Ratzlaff could not hear him.  
Dasanjh also testified in direct examination that he did not recall asking Ratzlaff if  
he was for or against him, nor did he recall Ratzlaff saying that he was on the fence.  
Dasanjh adamantly denied telling Ratzlaff that unions had no place at WCS. He denied  
pointing to Anderson's truck and saying he had to go and so did the Union. Dasanjh did  
not recall telling Ratzlaff that if the Union came in, he was going to make Ratzlaff's life  
In cross-examination, some of Dasanjh's testimony differed from what he said in  
direct. He acknowledged that Ratzlaff "may have said he was sitting on the fence".  
Dasanjh testified that he could not remember everything that was said in the  
conversation and acknowledged that his evidence about what happened was  
- 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 Unions  
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  
- 9 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
Union (like Anderson) had to go and the Union was unwelcome at WCS. He clearly  
expressed that Ratzlaff should also go back to work for his former employer when  
Ratzlaff did not disavow his interest in the Union. It is unsurprising that Ratzlaff was  
concerned about his continued employment at WCS following the exchange.  
Post-February 16, 2022 Treatment of Ratzlaff  
After February 16, 2022, Ratzlaff's relationship with Dasanjh became strained.  
Dasanjh told Ratzlaff that he had seen union paraphernalia in the back of Ratzlaff's  
personal vehicle. Dasanjh no longer demonstrated the same closeness in his  
interactions with Ratzlaff as he had previously. Dasanjh was generally non-  
communicative to Ratzlaff. For example, he no longer asked Ratzlaff how he was doing  
when he saw him and there were no more fist pumps. Ratzlaff felt that the family  
atmosphere that existed before was no longer present around Dasanjh. Dasanjh,  
however, continued to greet other employees in a jovial and interested manner. Ratzlaff  
heard Dasanjh give other employees compliments. In his evidence, Ratzlaff expressed  
disappointment and a sense of loss from the fact that Dasanjh was avoiding him and  
was no longer accessible to him, in the way he was to others. Instead, Ratzlaff felt that  
Dasanjh was very critical of him and otherwise very careful about his interactions with  
On one occasion, Ratzlaff was in the Yard dealing with a situation in which a  
garbage bin had become stuck on his truck. Ratzlaff followed the company's procedure  
and involved his manager, who told him to speak with one of the Employer's mechanics.  
While the mechanic and Ratzlaff were inspecting the situation, Dasanjh arrived and  
began to take photographs of Ratzlaff using another truck to get the bin unstuck.  
Dasanjh required that Ratzlaff complete an incident report. Ratzlaff felt this was unfair,  
as he had not done anything wrong and had proposed a solution that easily resolved  
the issue with the bin, a solution with which Dasanjh agreed. Other drivers have not  
been required to submit an incident report in similar circumstances.  
The differential treatment of Ratzlaff was consistent with Dasanjh's differential  
treatment of Anderson, after he had been reinstated. The evidence established that  
post-reinstatement, Dasanjh no longer spoke to Anderson and ignored him completely,  
including in front of other employees in the dispatch office and in the Yard.  
February Employer Notice Regarding Union Meeting  
In 2022 BCLRB 13 the Board made the following order:  
I order that within 30 calendar days of the date of the decision, the  
Employer must allow the Union to have a 60-minute meeting with  
the Employer's work crews at the Employer's expense during work  
time and in the workplace without management or relatives of  
persons related to the owner present.  
- 10 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
The Union and Employer agreed that the meeting would take place at 3:00 p.m.  
on February 22, 2022, in the Employer's Shop building at Glacier Street. As employees  
begin and end their shifts at various times, it was agreed that employees would be  
permitted to come to Glacier Street prior to the end of their shift to attend the meeting.  
The meeting did not occur.  
About a week before the meeting, the Employer posted a notice on its memo  
board, where employees could see it, which read:  
[Company Logo]  
Notice to Employees  
This is to advise all employees that pursuant to an Order of the  
Labour Relations Board (which has been posted in our workplace),  
we have been ordered to allow the International Union of Operating  
Engineers, Local No. 115 to have a 60-minute meeting with our  
work crews during work time, in the workplace, and at our expense.  
We have decided to hold the meeting at 3pm on February 22, 2022  
in our maintenance building in Coquitlam. Crews who are not  
finished working will be called in from their shifts in order that they  
may attend the meeting, if they so desire. Employees are not  
obligated to attend the meeting but if an employee should decide to  
attend, they are entitled to keep the fact of that attendance  
confidential and private from the employer.  
As operational needs unfold, we may provide a further notice to  
explain how the shifts will be scheduled for February 22, 2022 at  
3pm. Any questions should be directed to Jeremy Crawford,  
General Manager.  
(underlining added)  
It is possible, from the Office, to view the area through which employees would  
have to walk from the employee parking lot or the Office to reach the Shop. Dasanjh  
and Crawford had planned to be absent from Glacier Street when the meeting was  
going to take place, but no arrangements had been made for other managers to be off-  
The Union takes issue with the underlined sentence in the Notice.  
Company Memo "To All Employees"  
On or about March 3 or 4, 2022, the Employer posted a notice that addressed a  
variety of issues regarding unionization and the Employer's current wages and benefits.  
It was addressed "To All Employees" and includes the following statement, to which the  
Union objects:  
- 11 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
"What is a "Strike" or "Lockout"?  
Generally, if a union and a company are unable to agree to the  
terms and conditions of employment in a collective agreement,  
then employees are prohibited from working. A "strike is initiated by  
a union. A "lockout" is initiated by a company.  
The March 8, 2022 Donut Incident  
Simon Thomsen is an organizer with the Union. Union organizing at WCS began  
in late December 2021 and continued into 2022. At approximately 1:00 p.m., on  
March 8, 2022, Thomsen arrived in a pickup truck and parked in the cul-de-sac in front  
of the Office building, adjacent to one of the entrances to the Yard. Anderson was also  
there, in his own vehicle. Another Union organizer, Dave DeSousa was on his cell  
phone in his pickup truck and Thomsen parked, nose to tail abutting DeSousa's truck.  
None of the vehicles were blocking entrances to WCS, but they did take up some  
space in the cul-de-sac and could be seen from the Yard (from the area around the  
Wash Bay and where pre and post-trip inspections are carried out). There is a chain link  
fence, signage, and some small trees between where the vehicles were located and the  
Office. Despite this, the area where the Union organizer's vehicles were parked is  
visible from the Office (potentially by the dispatch staff).  
The Union's representatives attended the cul-de-sac to try to speak to WCS  
employees about joining the Union as they returned to the Yard after completing their  
routes. Thomsen lowered the tailgate of his truck, at which time Dasanjh approached  
Thomsen, after taking some photographs of the vehicles and the No Parking signs.  
Dasanjh told Thomsen that they were not allowed to be there, as they were  
parked in a No Parking Zone and disrupting the business. Dasanjh was concerned that  
WCS used the cul-de-sac as a staging area and felt the Union's trucks would impact his  
employees' ability to turn around in the cul-de-sac. Dasanjh told Thomsen he was going  
to call the RCMP and the municipality. Thomsen responded to Dasanjh: "Sure,  
whatever" and Dasanjh turned to leave. As he did so, Dasanjh said "Just remember, I  
asked nicely this time", and continued to walk back to the Yard.  
Thomsen continued to set up an organizing station, on his truck, with flyers,  
coffee and donuts. Anderson was standing nearby and DeSousa, who had finished his  
phone call, was making a coffee. When Dasanjh returned to the cul-de-sac. What  
happened next is the subject of a dispute between Dasanjh and the Union's witnesses.  
What follows is Thomsen and DeSousa's version of events of what occurred  
when Dasanjh arrive the second time. On seeing the box of donuts Thomsen had put  
out for WCS employees, Dasanjh said "Oh, donuts", took one, and began eating it.  
Thomsen responded by saying: "Yah, sure have a donut", as Dasanjh was already  
eating it.  
- 12 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
At that moment, Dasanjh grabbed the entire box of donuts. DeSousa, upon  
seeing this, pushed the box down on the tailgate of the truck and angrily said, "Fuck you  
punk. Those aren't for you. They are for the crew. You can have one, but you can't have  
all of them". Dasanjh turned to square up with DeSousa and said to him: "I'd like to meet  
you in a dark alley". DeSousa responded: "The same". Dasanjh offered to give  
DeSousa his home address, to which DeSousa responded that "I don't want your  
fucking home address". The situation defused from that point on. Dasanjh took a bite  
out of the donut he had taken and returned to the Yard.  
DeSousa acknowledged in his evidence that he "responded badly". Both  
DeSousa and Thomsen testified that they could not be sure if any of the employees in  
the Yard stopped their work because of the incident or if employees actually observed  
what happened.  
Dasanjh told different stories, in direct examination and in cross-examination,  
regarding his second visit to the Union's organizing station. His evidence in direct was  
that he did not take a donut until one of the Union's representatives offered him one. He  
said that he put his hand in the donut box and "ended up taking the entire box". When  
he did so, Dasanjh says one of the union representatives swore at him, saying  
something like, "These donuts are not for fucking you", and took the box of donuts back.  
Dasanjh then said he took the donut he had and walked away without saying  
anything at all. He denied telling DeSousa that he would like to see him in a dark alley  
and said that he did not offer to give DeSousa his home address. Later in his direct  
evidence, Dasanjh admitted that he "took the box, being a bit cheeky", which is  
inconsistent with his earlier evidence, which left the impression that he took the entire  
box of donuts inadvertently, not deliberately being "cheeky".  
In cross-examination, when it was put to Dasanjh that no one offered him an  
entire box of donuts, he testified that he would not have taken the box if he had not  
been offered the box; but later he said he did not know if he was offered a single donut  
or the entire box. This conflicting version of events is also inconsistent with his initial  
statement that when he took the box of donuts he was "being cheeky", not because he  
was offered it.  
Dasanjh acknowledged that he and DeSousa knew each other from an  
interaction about 12 years ago and that they had a confrontational history. Dasanjh also  
acknowledged that the police had contacted him (though he could not recall if it was in  
person or over the phone) in response to a complaint that DeSousa had made about an  
interaction he had with Dasanjh.  
I do not accept Dasanjh's versions of events regarding his second visit to the cul-  
de-sac. Firstly, they are inconsistent. Secondly, they do not accord with the surrounding  
circumstances. Given Dasanjh's admonition to Thomsen at the end of his first visit to the  
Union's organizing station (i.e., that "he asked nicely this time") and that he was  
unhappy the Union representatives were still parked in front of WCS's building, in a no  
- 13 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
parking zone, it is unlikely that Dasanjh simply walked away without further comment  
when DeSousa swore at him.  
I find that Dasanjh initially took a single donut, without it being offered to him, and  
followed that up by attempting to take the entire box of donuts without permission, as a  
means of provocation. I also find that DeSousa reacted to Dasanjh's conduct in an  
inappropriate manner and Dasanjh acted in an equally inappropriate manner by  
escalating the situation, (i.e., by saying he would like to meet DeSousa in a dark alley).  
The second incident occurred in Anderson's presence. Although there was no  
evidence that other employees in the Yard or in the Office saw the incident in the cul-  
de-sac, it was possible for them to have seen the incident given where it occurred and  
the line of sight to where other employees worked. It would also have been possible for  
employees to observe Dasanjh taking photographs of the Union's organizing station.  
March 9, 2022 Blockading Incident  
The day after the March 8, 2022 Donut Incident, Thomsen and another Union  
organizer, John Munro were parked in the cul-de-sac at approximately 1:00 p.m. Shortly  
after they arrived, a WCS Front End Truck parked at an angle adjacent to Munro's and  
Thomsen's pickup trucks. The driver of the WCS truck turned off the truck and walked  
into the Yard, but did not immediately return.  
About 10 or 15 minutes later, another WCS truck arrived and parked behind the  
first WCS truck. The driver turned off his vehicle and left. As a result, Munro's and  
Thomsen's trucks were effectively blockaded. They could not move from where they  
were located and were shielded from view from the cul-de-sac. They were restricted  
from being able to see into the cul-de-sac. To attempt to speak to WCS employees  
returning from their routes, Munro and Thomsen would have had to walk between the  
two WCS trucks into the cul-de-sac.  
A manager, Raj Sandhu, became aware of the situation and went to speak to the  
drivers, once he was able to determine who had been driving the trucks. He asked one  
of the drivers to move the trucks, but the driver refused to do so and went home.  
Sandhu then called the maintenance shop to ask a mechanic to move the trucks.  
When the WCS trucks remained parked in the cul-de-sac with no sign of their  
drivers returning, Thomsen went to the Office and asked Sandhu to move the trucks.  
Sandhu told Thomsen that he did not have a license to drive the trucks but that he  
would ask a mechanic to move them. A short while later, two mechanics moved the  
trucks. By that time, the trucks had blockaded Thomsen and Munro's trucks for  
approximately half an hour to forty-five minutes.  
Neither of the drivers was disciplined for their conduct of leaving their vehicles in  
the cul-de-sac blockading Thomsen and Munro's vehicles. Neither did management  
pursue any non-disciplinary follow up with the drivers or advise other employees not to  
repeat what had occurred.  
- 14 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
March 9, 2022 Employee Counter-Organizing Incident  
Not long after the blockade was removed, some WCS employees came out to  
the edge of Glacier Street and set up a table with Tim Horton's coffee and donuts on it.  
It is unclear how the employees obtained the donuts and coffee during workhours.  
Initially, the table was set up on WCS property, but later the employees moved it to the  
The employees verbally engaged with the Union's representatives who were in  
the cul-de-sac. By their comments, they were not supportive of the Union's organizing.  
Not long after the table was set up, Crawford and Tara Evans the Employer's Human  
Resources Manager came out to speak to the employees at the table. Either Crawford  
or Evans told them that if they were on duty they needed to go back to work. Some of  
the employees who were still on shift left and were told by Evans or Crawford not to  
return to the table again while on shift. Others who were at the table stayed. The table  
was removed after about 15 minutes and the employees left.  
Ratzlaff's Complaint against Sibthorpe and Fitzgerald HR Report  
Sometime after the February 16, 2022 incident described above, Ratzlaff began  
placing bulletins about the benefit of joining the Union in staff lockers, on his off-duty  
hours. Ratzlaff expected that his work colleagues would see them as they sometimes  
kept personal belongings and their uniforms in the lockers. The bulletins were not well  
received by some of Ratzlaff's co-workers, who let that be known to Ratzlaff.  
In early March 2022, Ratzlaff complained to a manager about the treatment he  
was receiving from some of his co-works. The manager introduced him to Evans. Evans  
investigated Ratzlaff's complaints. In her investigation report of March 11, 2022 (which  
was reviewed and signed off by Crawford), Evans describes Ratzlaff's fully  
particularized allegations, involving two employees, Rob Sibthorpe and Jim Fitzgerald.  
The allegations include refusal by Sibthorpe and Fitzgerald to include Ratzlaff in  
their conversations and the fact that they ignored Ratzlaff. Fitzgerald was also alleged  
to have sworn at Ratzlaff and refused to assist Ratzlaff with an issue involving the truck  
Ratzlaff was driving.  
Ratzlaff also complained that when he confirmed to Sibthorpe that he had been  
distributing Union bulletins in the locker room, Sibthorpe said: "Why don't you give them  
to me so I can rip them up in your face, don't ever do that or else". When Ratzlaff  
walked away Sibthorpe called him a "F'n Skumbag". Ratzlaff also reported to Evans that  
Sibthorpe was giving him "dirty looks" the next day.  
Evans questioned Fitzgerald about Ratzlaff's allegations that he refused to assist  
Ratzlaff with an issue involving his truck and that he had sworn at Ratzlaff. Fitzgerald  
told Evans that he ignored Ratzlaff generally and denied swearing at Ratzlaff. Evans  
spoke to another employee who told her that he had heard Fitzgerald swear at Ratzlaff.  
- 15 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
Evans did not speak with Sibthorpe about the allegations involving him. Instead,  
Evans accepted a statement that Sibthorpe made to Sandhu about Ratzlaff's  
allegations. According to Evans' investigation report, Sibthorpe told Sandhu he did not  
want to talk about what had occurred between him and Ratzlaff and that if Ratzlaff  
wanted to put things in his locker Ratzlaff should give it to him personally so that he  
could rip it up in Ratzlaff's face and "tell him to stuff it". Sibthorpe refused to discuss the  
situation further.  
Despite Ratzlaff's clear and unequivocal statement that Sibthorpe had sworn at  
him and threatened him for having put Union bulletins in Sibthorpe's locker and in the  
face of Sibthorpe's refusal to discuss the situation beyond his statement to Sandhu,  
Evans concluded in her investigation report that there " . are no witnesses to confirm  
a threat happened or profanity was used".  
Regarding the allegations against Fitzgerald, Evans concluded that he had used  
profanity, but appears to have absolved Fitzgerald of any wrongdoing, from a health and  
safety perspective, regarding his refusal to assist Ratzlaff with his truck.  
Evans concluded that there was no bullying or harassment as defined by  
WorkSafe BC by either Sibthorpe or Fitzgerald. Rather, she found that their conduct  
amounted to "unprofessionalism". These findings were made even though Ratzlaff's  
description of events were either corroborated by another employee, admitted to or  
uncontradicted and even though Sibthorpe refused to fully cooperate in the  
Moreover, even though she had found no bullying and harassment to have  
occurred and even though Ratzlaff had done nothing inappropriate, to address his  
complaint, Evans' recommended: "Bullying and Harassment training for all parties  
involved", including Ratzlaff.  
The Employer did not provide a copy of Evans' investigation report to Ratzlaff. He  
saw it for the first time when it was disclosed as part of WCS's reliance documents in  
the context of the Union's unfair labour practice complaint. Instead, Evans spoke with  
Ratzlaff after her investigation and told him that she had investigated his complaints but  
one of his co-workers refused to speak to her and the other assured her that he would  
be professional in his relationship with Ratzlaff in the future. Ratzlaff told Evans that he  
was willing "to let bygones be bygones".  
On March 11, 2022, Evans posted a memo on various WCS bulletin boards and  
put a copy of the memo in each of the driver's route sheets. The memo encouraged  
employees to have a respectful workplace and set out the employees' responsibilities to  
ensure that one existed at WCS. The Employer did not impose any negative  
consequences on Sibthorpe or Fitzgerald for their behaviour (other than having to  
attend training for bullying and harassment, which was described as non-disciplinary),  
as it felt nothing more was required when Ratzlaff indicated he would let it be.  
- 16 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
This was the first time an allegation of a threat by one employee toward another  
had been brought to Crawford's attention and the first investigation of allegations of  
serious misconduct that Evans had conducted at WCS.  
March 16, 2022 Cul-De-Sac Confrontation  
On March 16, 2022, the Union's organizers were again parked in the cul-de-sac,  
in the same location as previously described. One of the drivers, who had blockaded the  
Union organizers' trucks on March 9, 2022, pulled his WCS truck up close to the Union  
organizers' trucks and honked at them, in an apparent attempt to get them to move. The  
driver got out of his truck and angrily told the organizers that they were in his way and  
could not park there. One of the Union organizers told him that if he had an issue to call  
the police. The situation continued for a short time during which Sandhu was observing  
from WCS property. Sandhu did not intervene or go out to see what was happening.  
The office staff were gathered at the Office window observing the incident.  
Later, Sandhu spoke to the driver and asked him what had happened and if he  
was "ok", as he wanted to try to calm him down. Sandhu did not want the driver to drive  
if he was agitated. The driver told Sandhu that he was unhappy that one of the Union's  
organizers was filming him. There was no discipline imposed on the driver for what  
The next day, Thomsen contacted Crawford to discuss the incident and raised  
concerns about anti-union chatter between the drivers on their two-way radios. As a  
result, Crawford spoke with WCS supervisors and the dispatch staff and followed it up  
with an email to them and Evans on March 18, 2022 with a Subject Line that read  
"Union Loitering Outside". The memo said:  
Please keep an eye out for anyone on shift engaging the union in  
the cul-dec-sac in a less than civil manner. I know that there are a  
lot of staff that are upset about them being here.  
Please make sure everyone is safe and that staff on shift are  
focused on finishing their day.  
Dispatch, if there is off topic conversation over the radio please  
remind the drivers to keep the conversation work related and  
Crawford testified that he understood the term "loitering" to be a pejorative term,  
implying that there was no purpose or reason for the Union to be in the cul-de-sac. He  
used the term despite his knowledge that the Union organizers had a purpose for being  
- 17 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
As noted above, the parties described in their written argument, in detail, the  
facts as they saw them. They based their arguments on the facts as they believed them  
to be, given their view of the evidence. However, I made factual determinations based  
on the evidence before me and described them above. In some circumstances, the  
Union's and Employer's views of the facts are not as I have found. Consequently, their  
arguments based on those their view of the evidence are not supported by the facts. I  
have not expressly indicated below where that may be the case and have not attempted  
to reconcile those arguments with the facts set out above.  
Union's Position  
The Union argues that Dasanjh has demonstrated, through his conduct toward  
his employees and the Union's organizers and as a witness, that he is "deeply anti-  
union". It says that after WCS's initial reaction to the Union attempting to organize (the  
termination of Anderson and the Board's remedial response to it), the Employer  
engaged in an ongoing anti-union campaign which demonstrates that WCS, and  
Dasanjh in particular, is determined to avoid permitting the business to be subject to a  
certification. The Union submits this campaign involved:  
Statements, enquiries and threats made by Mr. Dasanjh to Mr.  
Ratzlaff on February 3 & 16, 2022; An angry confrontation with  
Union organizers on March 8, 2022; Shunning pro-union  
employees; Misleading and coercive written communications to  
employees; and [t]he condonation of anti-union conduct of  
Regarding the February 3, 2022 conversation with Ratzlaff, the Union says that  
when Dasanjh pointed toward Anderson and told Ratzlaff not to talk to him and to leave  
him alone, this was a violation of Section 6(1), 6(3)(d) and 9 of the Code. It also says  
that this undermined what the panel in 2022 BCLRB 13 was attempting to achieve with  
the reinstatement of the Union's key inside organizer. The Union submits that the  
Board's refusal to grant a remedial certification in response to Anderson's termination  
assumed that the Employer would not commit further unfair labour practices, especially  
ones aimed at Anderson.  
The Union argues that the interaction between Dasanjh and Ratzlaff on February  
16, 2022 was also a violation of Sections 6(1), 6(3)(d) and 9 of the Code. It submits that  
Dasanjh was attempting to discover whether Ratzlaff was supporting the Union and  
when he learned that Ratzlaff was interested in the Union he attempted to intimidate  
and coerce Ratzlaff by saying that Anderson and the Union had to go and threatening to  
make it rough on Ratzlaff if the Union succeeded in being certified. The Union relies on  
Viva Pharmaceuticals Inc., BCLRB No. B9/2002 ("Viva Pharmaceuticals "); Rambow  
Mechanical Ltd., BCLRB No. B277/2012 ("Rambow"); Excell Agent Services Canada  
Co., BCLRB No. B172/2003 ("Excell"); and Aurora Electric Inc., 2022 BCLRB 20  
- 18 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
The Union says the March 8, 2022 Donut Incident and the confrontation between  
Dasanjh and DeSousa, is also a violation of Sections 6(1), 6(3)(d) and 9 of the Code. It  
argues that Dasanjh "initiated a physical confrontation by grabbing the box of donuts  
from Mr. Thomsen's tailgate . . . [and] was intentionally provocative . . . abusive and  
loud". The Union also submits that when Dasanjh threatened DeSousa, by saying that  
he would "like to meet you in a dark alley sometime", the Employer committed an unfair  
labour practice. All of this, it submits occurred in front of Anderson, in "plain view of  
people working in the office and in plain view of people working in the yard". The Union  
likens Dasanjh's behaviour to the conduct of the employer in Lordco Parts Ltd., BCLRB  
No. B35/2004 ("Lordco").  
The Union relies, as well, on three Employer communications which it says were  
unfair labour practice complaints. One of the communications was the February memo  
described above which it says implies that attending the meeting directed by the Board  
in 2022 BCLRB 13 was something to be kept confidential even though there was no  
way to ensure the Employer was prevented from knowing who attended the meeting.  
Another communication was the March 3 or 4, 2022 memo which stated that the  
employees would be prohibited from working if the Union was certified and no collective  
agreement was agreed upon. The third communication was Crawford's March 18, 2022,  
email that contained a negative statement about the Union.  
Each of these communications, argues the Union, are violations of Sections 6(1),  
6(3)(d) and 9 of the Code. It says the communications were used as scare tactics by the  
Employer to influence its employees not to support the establishment of a union at  
WCS. The Union relies on Sysco Fine Meats Vancouver, 2020 BCLRB 78 ("Sysco Fine  
Meats"), and British Columbia Lottery Corporation, BCLRB No. B87/2002 ("BCLC"). In  
particular, it says that I should conclude that WCS, like British Columbia Lottery  
Corporation had "inserted itself into the formation and selection of the Union" by making  
statements that were "both inaccurate and misleading" in an effort to persuade its  
employees to not join or support the Union.  
The Union also argues that the Employer breached Sections 6(1), 6(3)(d) and 9  
of the Code when Dasanjh engaged in a pattern of shunning Anderson and Ratzlaff. It  
points out that although Dasanjh is generally a jovial person and was friendly with  
Anderson and Ratzlaff before he became aware of their support for the Union, after  
becoming so aware Dasanjh's behaviour toward them changed. The Union described it  
as "[publicly] ignoring or ghosting known Union supporters".  
In addition to being a breach of Sections 6(1), 6(3)(d) and 9 of the Code, the  
Union also says that Dasanjh's shunning of Anderson was a violation of Section 5(1)(c)  
of the Code. Relying on the Board's decision in Roger Hubner, BCLRB No. B109/2010  
("Hubner"), the Union argues that Mr. Anderson was the subject of retaliation by the  
Employer (by virtue of Dasanjh's shunning of him) because Anderson was the subject of  
the Union's earlier unfair labour practice complaint and because Anderson had  
participated in the hearing into that complaint. The Union acknowledged that there were  
no cases in which the Board considered whether an employer publicly shunning an  
employee after reinstatement following a Board proceeding amounted to retaliation.  
- 19 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
However, it says given the relatively small size of the workforce and the fact that the  
sole owner of the business engaged in negative behaviour toward the union supporter,  
this should be considered by the Board to be retaliation prohibited by Section 5(1)(c) of  
the Code.  
Finally, the Union argues that the Employer committed unfair labour practices  
when it condoned the anti-union conduct of some of its employees. Specifically, it says  
that a WCS employee keyed Anderson's personal vehicle and the Employer failed to do  
anything about it; WCS improperly investigate and failed to discipline Sibthorpe for  
making threats against Ratzlaff; WCS allowed the blockading of the Union organizers'  
trucks in the cul-de-sac without imposing any discipline on those responsible; and WCS  
did nothing while an employee, on work time, engaged in an angry confrontation with  
the Union's organizers.  
The Union acknowledged that some of the conduct viewed in isolation, may not  
amount to a violation of the Code. However, it says that taking the Employer's response  
to anti-union conduct by its employees, in context with its other unlawful behaviours can  
only lead to the conclusion that its decision to do nothing was part of a broader anti-  
union campaign to defeat the Union's organizing efforts.  
The Union argues that even if some of the Employer's responses to the above-  
noted circumstances could be chalked up to poor management, the blockading of the  
Union's organizers alone would violate Section 6(1) of the Code. It submits that because  
the Employer permitted the employees to use WCS vehicles to blockade the Union's  
organizers that amounts to the Employer interfering with the formation, selection, and  
administration of the Union. Relying on Cawston Cold Storage Ltd. BCLRB No.  
B149/2012 ("Cawston") and Lordco, the Union argues that where an employer fails to  
respond appropriately to its employees' anti-union conduct, the Employer's failure  
violates Section 6(1) of the Code.  
Employer's Position  
The Employer argues the Union has brought this application because it has been  
unable to convince WCS's employees to join the Union. The Employer points to the fact  
that Ratzlaff continued to organize for the Union despite an alleged threat by Dasanjh  
that he would make it rough for Ratzlaff if the Union was certified. It also points to the  
fact that the Union made allegations of an unfair labour practice involving Baudette but  
withdrew them. It argues that this must be taken into account in considering the totality  
of the Union's evidence.  
WCS submits that the Union's case hinges on two conversations involving  
Dasanjh, supplemented by what it described as "weak allegations".  
As to the Employer communications the Union relies on, WCS says the Union  
"has insidiously attempted to inflate meritless allegations about these communications  
into their application." It submits that doing so demonstrates the lack of facts that could  
establish a breach of the Code. The Employer says that even if the "meritless  
- 20 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
allegations" were true, they should not lead to the Board granting the Union a remedial  
certification, given the lack of employee support for the Union.  
Relying on Certain Employees of Taplow Ventures Ltd. (Taplow Feeds), BCLRB  
No. B141/2018, the Employer says the Board's focus under Section 6(1) is on the  
objective impact of the employer's conduct. In respect of the Union's claim that WCS  
breached Section 6(3)(d), it drew attention to the comments of the Board in 0720941  
B.C. Ltd., BCLRB No. B211/2008. WCS says the Board must find that inquiries  
regarding Union support must be a means to seek, through intimidation to compel or  
induce an employee to refrain from being a union member. It relies on the Board's  
comments in Excell for the proposition that to be characterized as coercion or  
intimidation there must be some sort of unfair, forceful pressure or threat of adverse  
The Employer submits that even if Ratzlaff's version of events was accepted as  
true, they do not meet the test established to find a breach of Section 6(1), 6(3)(d) or 9  
of the Code. With respect to Section 6(1), WCS asserts that the alleged conduct "would  
have little to no objective impact on the formation, selection, or administration of a trade  
union." Nor could they be "reasonably construed as seeking to compel employees from  
becoming union members, contrary to Section 6(3)(d). In addition, the Employer argues  
that the alleged conduct "cannot reasonably be construed as force, threats, fear or  
compulsion for the purpose of controlling or influencing conduct", in violation of Section  
9 of the Code.  
The Employer also argues that if Dasanjh changed the way he treated Anderson,  
viewed objectively, it did not amount to forceful pressure or a threat of adverse  
consequences. It further argues, in respect of Dasanjh's interactions with Ratzlaff, that  
"a one-time comment, even if true, made to one employee", and not overheard by any  
other employee, "would not have an objective impact on the formation, selection or  
administration of the Union" or "be a forceful threat of any adverse consequences". It  
notes that Ratzlaff continued to be employed and continued to organize on behalf of the  
The Employer distinguishes the cases relied on by the Union (Rambow; Aurora;  
Viva Pharmaceuticals), on the basis that those cases either involved captive audience  
meetings or much more egregious conduct by the employers which took place in front of  
other employees. WCS submits that those characteristics are not present in this case. It  
disputes the Union's suggestion that Ratzlaff was "captive" in his discussions with  
Dasanjh, as captive audience meetings are those which occur in a group setting, not  
one on one in a works yard as occurred in this case.  
WCS argues that here, on a balance of probabilities, the February interactions  
between Ratzlaff and Dasanjh were neither intimidating nor coercive "to the rest of the  
Similarly, the Employer says, in respect of the March 8, 2022 Donut Incident that  
it cannot be the basis of an unfair labour practice finding because there is no evidence  
- 21 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
that it was witnessed by employees, for example in the Office or in the Yard. Moreover,  
it says that any employee who saw what happened could not hear the interaction  
between Dasanjh and DeSousa. It disputes the Union's assertion that the incident was  
anything like what occurred in Lordco, setting out the difference in the facts between the  
two cases. It argues that the Union bringing DeSousa to organize Dasanjh's business  
was a provocative exercise, given "his previous experience with Mr. Dasanjh".  
WCS further submits that the Union has not provided any evidence "as to the  
objective impact that this incident had on other employees" and argues that an incident  
as brief as the Donut Incident, unseen by other employees could not have an adverse  
impact on the formation of the Union in breach of Section 6(1) of the Code. Nor, it says,  
could it be a breach of Section 6(3)(d) of the Code, when there was no evidence that  
Dasanjh was attempting, by his interaction with the Union on March 8, 2022, to  
intimidate employees to refrain from becoming union members.  
Regarding the Employer's communications, WCS argues that they were not in  
breach of the Code. The Employer distinguishes the Sysco Fine Meats, decision  
because the communications put out by that employer were different in quality to those  
published by WCS. It says that in Sysco Fine Meats, the Board noted that the employer  
set out to plant the idea that the union and its organizers had a "nefarious ulterior  
motivation", which was not the case here, says the Employer. Relying on RMH  
Teleservices International Inc. BCLRB No. B280/2005, WCS says the correct approach  
is for the Board to consider what are the "objective facts and to draw a reasonable  
inference about the probable effects of the contraventions".  
The Employer says that it simply told employees they could keep the fact of their  
attendance confidential because they were being called in from their routes prior to the  
end of their shift. It says that it understood the Board's order to require it to take steps to  
protect the employees' confidentiality. It says the Union denied the Employer the ability  
to put protective measures in place when the Union cancelled the meeting.  
WCS submits that the statement in its memo about whether employees are  
generally prohibited from working if there is no collective agreement reached must be  
read in the context of the heading which precedes it, i.e. "What is a strike or lockout". It  
says that the memo is not a misrepresentation but instead is "another example of the  
Union trying to pad what is an extremely weak application".  
The Employer says that Crawford's email of March 18, 2022 was not sent to  
employees under the Code. Rather it was sent to human resources, supervisors, and  
dispatchers in response to a communication from the Union complaining about anti-  
union chatter over the radios.  
WCS distinguishes the BCLC decision on the basis that in that case, the Board  
found that the employer was engaged in campaigning, using inaccurate and misleading  
editorializing to influence employees to vote against union representation. It says that is  
not what was occurring in the present case.  
- 22 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
The Employer denies that Dasanjh shunned Ratzlaff or Anderson and notes that  
the Board has never found an allegation of shunning to constitute a breach of the Code  
and it should not do so now. It also points out that Hubner, made clear that to establish  
a breach of Section 5(1) of the Code there must be a reasonable connection between  
the conduct of concern and a Board proceeding or because a person exercised a right  
under the Code connected to participation in a Board proceeding.  
Regarding the allegations that the Employer condoned anti-union conduct by its  
employee, the Employer submits that the Union's reliance on Cawston is misplaced, as  
that decision was issued without prejudice and contained no facts. It argues that the test  
is as set out in Sears Canada Inc., BCLRB No. B381/1997. The Employer cites this  
case for the proposition that there must be facts that connect the employees'  
misconduct to the employer either "explicitly or by reasonable inference". Put another  
way, there must be either direct or implicit authorization or condonation of the  
employees' misconduct by the Employer. WCS also relies on Convergeys Customer  
Management Canada Inc., BCLRB No. B62/2003 and Bigfoot Industries Inc., BCLRB  
No. B279/2000 in asserting that there was no evidentiary link between the employees'  
conduct and WCS. It points out that the Employer took steps to deal with the alleged  
misconduct of its employees.  
WCS says that there was nothing that it could use to investigate who keyed  
Anderson's vehicle, as the cameras were not recording. With respect to the threat by  
Sibthorpe against Ratzlaff, the Employer says that it investigated the situation, prepared  
a report, and took action by posting bulletins. It says Ratzlaff received the same bullying  
and harassment training so that he would know what training the others received.  
The Employer answers the allegations of blockading the Union organizers' trucks  
by noting that the organizers where still able to speak to employees and could get  
around the blockade by foot. Moreover, it says that the Employer took steps to move the  
trucks and they were only there for a short time.  
Regarding the allegation that the Employer did nothing while one of its  
employees confronted the organizers in the cul-de-sac, WCS says that it was  
appropriate for the manager not to "step out into the street to interfere with the Union's  
discussions with Mr. Fralick". Its main concern was that the employee did not leave his  
truck parked in the cul-de-sac, as he had done previously.  
In addressing the allegation related to the counter-organizing activities by some  
of WCS employees (i.e., setting up a table with coffee and donuts), the Employer notes  
that when it became aware of this situation, management reminded the employees that  
if they were on company time, they needed to return to work and shortly thereafter the  
activity came to an end and was not repeated.  
In short, WCS says that there is no evidence that the Employer was involved in  
authorizing or condoning anti-union activities by its employees.  
- 23 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
Union's Final Reply  
The Union argues that whether the employees' true wishes can be determined is  
a matter for the Board to decide, not for the Employer to assert by suggesting the Union  
is only applying for a remedial certification because the employees are not interested in  
the Union. It says that the Employer's reliance on the fact that Ratzlaff continued to  
organize despite the Employer's actions does not lead to the conclusion that there has  
been no breach of the Code. It says "the subjective impact of the Employer's conduct on  
Mr. Ratzlaff is not relevant to the Panel's enquiry. The test is objective the impugned  
conduct is assessed against a standard of a reasonable employee".  
The Union disputes that DeSousa was brought to WCS to provoke Dasanjh. He  
is a Union organizer and, it says he is entitled to do his job.  
Regarding the Employer's suggestion that the Union mischaracterized the  
statement in the Employer's memo about employees not being permitted to work if there  
was no collective agreement, the Union submits that the Employer has tried to recast  
what it said in its memo to be more benign (and accurate) than what was actually  
Regarding the Employer's assertion that Crawford's email was not sent to  
"employees", the Union says that it was sent to dispatchers, who are employees under  
the Code.  
In response to the Employer's submission regarding the shunning of Anderson,  
the Union says that it does not matter if only one other employee witnessed Dasanjh's  
actions; and, in any event, Anderson testified that it occurred in front of other  
employees, which was not challenged. The Union submits that just because the Board  
has not found shunning to be a Code violation does not mean that it does not violate the  
Code. It rejects WCS's suggestion that because Ratzlaff continued to organize after  
witnessing Anderson being shunned there was no unfair labour practice. It argues that  
Ratzlaff's subjective response to Anderson's treatment is irrelevant. On an objective  
test, the Union says that a reasonable employee who witnesses such treatment of a  
union supporter would be negatively impacted and that was the purpose of giving  
Anderson that treatment in front of other employees.  
The Union submits that the cases relied on by the Employer regarding  
condonation of anti-union conduct by an employer support the Union's complaint. It  
says, just as in those cases, "the Employer encouraged, implicitly authorized and  
condoned the anti-union conduct of a number of employees."  
As noted above, the Union describes the conduct that WCS engaged in since  
Anderson's reinstatement as a campaign of anti-union actions designed to prevent the  
employees from making a free decision about whether to be represented by a trade  
- 24 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
union. The alleged campaign involves several actions on the part of the Employer, and  
others by some of its employees, which the Union says the Employer condoned.  
There were many disputed facts. I have set earlier in this decision my  
determination of what occurred from the time that Anderson was reinstated pursuant to  
2022 BCLRB 13 and roughly the middle of March 2022. As will be discussed below,  
following four days of oral evidence, review of numerous documents, and taking a view  
of the locations where the incidents occurred, I have concluded that the Employer  
committed unfair labour practices contrary to Section 6(1), 6(3)(d), and 9 of the Code.  
I will review the impugned conduct and explain to what extent it amounts to a  
violation of the Code. As the parties did in their submissions, some of the conduct has  
been grouped and considered taking into account the specific circumstances of the  
incident and the extent to which it is part of a larger effort on the part of the Employer to  
remain union free. The impugned conduct is:  
February 3, 2022 Ratzlaff/Dasanjh Conversation  
February 16, 2022 Ratzlaff/Dasanjh Conversation  
March 8, 2022 Donut Incident  
Shunning of Ratzlaff and Anderson  
Employer Communications to Employees  
Condonation of Employee Conduct  
Many of the Union's allegations assert a breach of Sections 6(1), 6(3)(d) and 9 of  
the Code. Only one allegation alleges a breach of Section 5(1)(c) of the Code, which I  
will deal with separately below. In light of this, I begin by considering the language of  
Sections 6(1), 6(3), and 9 which provide as follows:  
6(1) An employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer must  
not participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or  
administration of a trade union or contribute financial or other  
support to it.  
* * *  
6(3) An employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer must  
* * *  
(d) seek by intimidation, by dismissal, by threat of  
dismissal or by any other kind of threat, or by the imposition  
of a penalty, or by a promise, or by a wage increase, or by  
altering any other terms or conditions of employment, to  
- 25 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
compel or to induce an employee to refrain from becoming  
or continuing to be a member or officer or representative of  
a trade union,  
* * *  
9 A person must not use coercion or intimidation of any kind that  
could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing a  
person to become or to refrain from becoming or to continue or  
cease to be a member of a trade union.  
I have reviewed the authorities argued by the parties in their submissions and  
have considered how the Board has applied the above Code protections. I note that the  
parties do not seriously dispute the law as it relates to these sections of the Code.  
Rather, their arguments focused on the application of the law to the specific facts of this  
case, attempting to analogize or distinguish the facts of the cases relied on by one  
February 3, 2022 Ratzlaff/Dasanjh Conversation  
I found that the Dasanjh had a conversation with Ratzlaff during which he told  
Ratzlaff "Don't talk to him. Leave him alone.", referring to Anderson. Dasanjh knew  
Anderson to be not only a union supporter but also the Union's key inside organizer.  
The conversation occurred not long after Anderson had been reinstated by the Board,  
having been unlawfully terminated by WCS. By telling Ratzlaff to isolate Anderson, I  
conclude Dasanjh's purpose could only have been to send a clear message to Ratzlaff  
that union supporters were undesirables and not to be associated with.  
By directing Ratzlaff to isolate Anderson and not to speak to him, Dasanjh  
interfered with the formation of a union at WCS and interfered with Ratzlaff's decision  
regarding the selection of the Union as his representative, in violation of Section 6(1) of  
the Code. I reject the Employer's suggestion that the comment would not be objectively  
construed by an employee and that they should avoid becoming a member of the  
Union. It was clearly not an encouragement to join the Union and was not neutral in any  
sense of the word. On the contrary, it was a not-so-subtle message not to be a union  
member like Anderson.  
I agree with the Union that Dasanjh's actions ran counter to the remedy that the  
Board had granted by reinstating the Union's key inside organizer. As will be explained  
in more detail below, Dasanjh does not accept that WCS violated the Code when it fired  
Anderson in the first place.  
The Employer's suggestion that "a one-time comment, even if true, made to one  
employee, and not overheard by any other employee, would not have an objective  
impact" is without merit. Firstly, it was not a one-time comment. As noted above and  
discussed below, Dasanjh had another conversation with Ratzlaff on February 16, 2022.  
Secondly, even if it was the only comment made by Dasanjh to Ratzlaff, an employer  
does not get one free shot to make a comment of such a nature that is targeted at an  
- 26 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
employee to attempt to dissuade them not to support a union. Moreover, it is irrelevant  
whether any other employees overheard Dasanjh's comment to Ratzlaff. It was an  
obvious attempt to isolate the Union's key organizer and it interfered in Ratzlaff's  
decision making process regarding union membership.  
The Employer's suggestion that Dasanjh's comments were not a breach of the  
Code because Ratzlaff continue to be employed and later engaged in union organizing  
(by putting union material in the employee's lockers) is also mistaken. Ratzlaff's  
subjective perspective regarding Dasanjh's comments is of limited value in determining  
objectively what the impact of those comments would have been, i.e. how would a  
reasonable employee in the circumstances have viewed the Dasanjh's direction to  
isolate Anderson and not to associate with him. I conclude that Dasanjh's message was  
unambiguous and would have had the effect of interfering in the decision-making  
process of a reasonable employee regarding whether to join a trade union or not.  
February 16, 2022 Ratzlaff/Dasanjh Conversation  
In addition to the February 3, 2022 conversation between Dasanjh and Ratzlaff, I  
found that another conversation between them occurred on February 16, 2022. That  
conversation involved Dasanjh attempting to determine if Ratzlaff was a union supporter  
and attempting to dissuade him from supporting the Union. Dasanjh made it clear to  
Ratzlaff how he felt about union supporters; they had to go. Dasanjh threatened to  
make Ratzlaff's life rough if the Union was certified and told him that Ratzlaff should go  
back to working for his previous employer.  
The Employer went to great lengths in its submission to argue that Dasanjh's  
comments (even if made, which it denied was the case) were not made in a captive  
audience meeting and were therefore distinguishable from some of the cases relied on  
by the Union (which involved captive audience meetings). It also says that the  
comments were neither intimidating nor coercive "to the rest of the employees"  
There can be no doubt that Dasanjh's treatment of Ratzlaff in the conversation  
that took place on February 16, 2022 was a violation of Section 6(1), 6(3) and Section 9  
of the Code. Dasanjh interfered in the selection and formation of a trade union by  
attempting to determine whether Ratzlaff was a union supporter. In Viva  
Pharmaceuticals, the Board recognized this:  
However, Labour Relations Boards have long recognized that  
an organizing drive is a particularly sensitive period.  
Management conduct that has the effect of discouraging  
unionization may be subjected to careful scrutiny. Certain types of  
conduct will almost certainly be found to constitute an interference  
with the employees' freedom of association. Asking employees if  
they have signed a union card or support the union falls into  
this category: see Cardinal Transportation B.C. Incorporated,  
BCLRB No. B344/96 (Reconsideration of BCLRB Nos. B463/94  
and B232/95), (1996), 34 CLRBR (2d) 1, at para. 203.  
- 27 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
(para. 86)  
While Dasanjh did not directly ask Ratzlaff if he had signed a union card, he was  
attempting to determine if he was a union supporter; in Dasanjh's mind, to find out  
whether Ratzlaff trusted him and who's side he was on. Dasanjh went even further by  
threatening Ratzlaff when he did not kowtow to Dasanjh's vision of a union-free WCS.  
This was a breach of Sections 6(3)(d) and 9.  
To address the Employer's demurral that the Union relies on cases involving  
captive audience meetings, which did not occur in this case, one need only note that  
regardless of whether made in a captive audience meeting or in circumstances where  
there was no captive audience meeting, Dasanjh's comments would be considered to  
be coercive and intimidating. They would be (and are in this case) a breach of the Code.  
Finally, on this point, it matters not whether the comments were made only to  
Ratzlaff and "were not intimidating and coercive to the rest of the employees". They  
were coercive and intimidating to Ratzlaff and would have been to any reasonable  
employee to whom they were said.  
March 8, 2022 Donut Incident  
On March 8, 2022, after first telling the Union's organizers that they were illegally  
parked and blocking traffic to his business, Dasanjh returned to the cul-de-sac and  
provoked an inappropriate response from DeSousa, where it was possible for  
employees in the Yard and in the Office to see. First, he took one of the Union's donuts  
without permission and then attempted to take the entire box of donuts without  
permission. He surely ought to have known that the Union would not appreciate this, yet  
he did so in any event. In his own words, he was "being cheeky". One might describe it  
as a power play, demonstrating who was in charge for anyone to see. This occurred in  
front of at least one employee, Anderson.  
DeSousa's response was inappropriate and did not help matters. However,  
Dasanjh, knowing that he had been out of line could have simply de-escalated the  
situation. Instead, he chose to square up to and threaten DeSousa by saying he would  
like to meet him in a dark ally, implying that he would harm DeSousa in a place where  
no one would witness him doing so. Threatening a union organizer constitutes a breach  
of Section 6(1) in and of itself. Doing so in the presence of an employee or employees  
(in this case Anderson) is a violation of Section 6(3)(d). As it happened, Anderson did  
not call everything Dasanjh and DeSousa said to one another. However, he recalled  
hearing "F-bombs" and did witness Dasanjh's action. A reasonable employee in  
Anderson's position could have been compelled to cease or avoid being a union  
member. It may come as a surprise to Dasanjh that his conduct was a breach of the  
Code, as he attempted to minimize them in his evidence when he said: "I have a  
business to run and we are going to waste time on two days and fucking donuts."  
- 28 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
Shunning of Ratzlaff and Anderson  
The evidence established that Dasanjh identified the Union's supporters and  
engaged in the practice of treating them differently than others whom he did not suspect  
to be union supporters, or differently than he had prior to believing them to be Union  
I am satisfied that Dasanjh attempted to isolate Anderson and Ratzlaff when he  
came to believe they were union supporters. The ultimate isolation of Anderson was his  
initial unlawful termination. When that failed, because the Board ordered he be  
reinstated, Dasanjh then determined to make Anderson persona non grata at WCS.  
Evidence of this is his direction on February 3, 2022, to Ratzlaff, to leave Anderson  
alone and not to talk to him. I have also found that when Dasanjh first approached  
Ratzlaff, Anderson was close by and Dasanjh did not greet Anderson or even  
acknowledge his existence. Dasanjh also ignored Anderson in the Yard and Office in  
front of other employees.  
This exclusionary pattern of behaviour was expanded to include Ratzlaff after  
February 16, 2022. The evidence established that Dasanjh no longer demonstrated the  
same friendliness with Ratzlaff as he had previously and was generally non-  
communicative. Ratzlaff no longer felt like a member of the WCS family.  
This deliberate effort to freeze out Anderson and Ratzlaff was done because  
Dasanjh knew or believed them to be Union supporters or organizers. It was a less  
direct attempt to interfere in their right to freely select whether to become union  
members and whether to organize a union at WCS. It was an attempt to demonstrate to  
them that they would be better off if they were not members of the Union. I have made  
this determination taking into account the other actions by Dasanjh and his statement in  
evidence that if an employee trusted him, they would not want to join a union.  
It is important to recognize that not every slight or difference in treatment will  
constitute a breach of the Code. The Board will be careful to understand the context in  
which an employer's behaviour occurs. It would be unsurprising that some employers  
will be more careful or circumspect about what they say to their employees once they  
discover an organizing drive is underway. Section 8 of the Code limits what can be said  
to employees during that time. That, however, is not what occurred here. Dasanjh  
utterly disregarded the mere existence of Anderson. His conduct was a breach of  
Section 6(1) and 6(3)(d) of the Code.  
The Union argues that the Employer discriminated against Anderson by shunning  
him because he was the subject of the proceeding in 2022 BCLRB 13 relying on  
Hubner. The Employer agrees that the Board's comments in Hubner set out the law and  
policy underlying Section 5(1), but says that the Board noted that for that section to  
apply the applicant must establish "a reasonable basis to infer the alleged coercion is  
connected to them invoking or being involved in a Board proceeding (or taking steps to  
invoke or be involved in Board proceeding . . . Section 5(1) prohibits the use of  
intimidation or coercion on a person because they exercised a right conferred under the  
- 29 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
Code. However, the Complainants cannot merely rely on an argument that they were  
exercising a rightunder the Code. If that right is not connected to their participation in a  
Board proceeding". The Union did not dispute this is the applicable law and policy  
regarding this section of the Code.  
I agree that Hubner sets out the Board's approach and that there must be some  
connection between the alleged Employer's action and the preservation of the integrity  
of the Board's proceedings. No such connection exists in respect of Dasanjh's treatment  
of Anderson. Rather, as noted above, Dasanjh's isolation of Anderson was a  
continuation of his attempt to remove him as an influence in the workplace. He treated  
him as he did because he viewed him as a threat to his business (by organizing a  
union) and wished to send a message to others that union supporters were considered  
undesirables. Although I have found that treatment to have been a violation of other  
sections of the Code, it does not meet the established test to find a breach of Section  
Employer Communications to Employees  
February Employer Memo Regarding Union Meeting  
The Union objects to the Employer's memo in February suggesting that if an  
employee decides to attend and wished to keep the fact of their attendance confidential  
and private from the Employer, they were free to do so. It says that an employer's  
misrepresentation to employees during a union organizing campaign amounts to  
interference with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union in violation of  
Section 6(1) of the Code. It relies on BCLC for this proposition.  
However, that decision does not go so far as to establish that any factually  
incorrect statement or misrepresentation by an employer during an organizing drive  
constitutes a violation of Section 6(1) of the Code. The Board considers when in the  
relationship the statement was made. Misleading statements are closely scrutinized  
during an organizing drive. The panel in BCLC noted that an employer's factually  
inaccurate statement, "made for the purpose of persuading employees to a certain end,  
in the exercise of their rights under the Code, may be a breach of Section 6(1)" (para.  
In BCLC, the panel concluded that the employer had engaged in American style  
political campaigning and "inserted itself into the formation and selection of the Union,  
and in doing that, breached Section 6(1) of the Code" (para. 267). Some of the  
employer's communications to its employees did not fall into that characterization and  
were found not to have run a foul of the Code. Those communications were not directed  
at attempting to interfere with the employees' freedom to choose whether to become  
members of the union.  
I find that the Employer's memo, in this case, did not interfere with WCS  
employees' decision regarding union membership. While the statement that employees  
- 30 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
could keep their attendance confidential was not strictly speaking correct, that would  
have been something which was likely known by any employee with any knowledge of  
the location of the meeting (the Shop) in relation to the Office.  
The memo was a poorly worded, bungled, attempt to reassure employees that  
the Code processes were confidential. It was not part of an organized attempt to  
persuade employees not to participate in the meeting. The memo clearly states that the  
meeting is being held at the direction of the Board, as was the fact that the Employer  
was required to pay employees to attend the meeting.  
Even considering the memo in the context of the Employer's other actions up to  
that point in time, I am unable to conclude that it was a breach of Section 6(1) of the  
March Company Notice To All Employees  
Turning to the Employer's notice in early March 2022 regarding the various Code  
implications of having a trade union, it falls into the same kind of communication the  
Board in BCLC noted was permissible and not a violation of Section 6(1) and 8 of the  
Code, except for the inaccurate statement to which the Union takes exception, i.e.,  
about the consequences of the Union and Employer not reaching a collective  
agreement in bargaining. The notice said that in such a circumstance:  
"Generallyemployees are prohibited from working."  
This incorrect statement may reasonably have had the effect of sparking fear in  
WCS' employees that if they chose to be represented by a trade union, and the parties  
could not reach a collective agreement, they would not be permitted to continue  
working. It could have the effect of causing employees to fear joining the Union, based  
on inaccurate information. It was published early in the relationship, i.e., during the  
organizing drive, when employees would have likely had very little experience with the  
collective bargaining process.  
The Employer argues that the statement has to be read in the context in which it  
was written in the notice, i.e., under the heading "What is a Strike or Lockout"? and as  
part of an otherwise acceptable communication. It says that during a strike or lockout,  
employees are generally not permitted to continue working. While this may be true, it is  
not the case that employees are prohibited from working because an employer and  
union have not been able to reach a collective agreement. It is not uncommon for  
collective bargaining to continue over a lengthy period of time when no collective  
agreement has been reached. Moreover, the Code provides for the possibility of first  
contract arbitration.  
Given when the inaccurate statement was made and the potential to create fear  
of joining the Union based on inaccurate information, I conclude that this statement in  
the notice was more in the nature of a campaign-style communication than an  
informative communication and was therefore a breach of Section 6(1).  
- 31 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
Jeremy Crawford's March 18, 2022 Email Re: Union Loitering Outside  
The Union takes issue with the reference line to Jeremy Crawford's email to the  
dispatch staff and certain managers, which read: "Union Loitering Outside". The term  
loitering is a pejorative term. Crawford knew it to be such. The Union says that use of  
that word was intended to cast the Union in a poor light, in an attempt to persuade  
employees (the dispatchers) not to join the Union.  
The rest of Crawford's email was appropriately protective of the Union and its  
organizers. It made it clear that WCS employees should be engaging with the Union's  
representatives in a civil manner and that there should not be anti-union chatter on the  
two-way radio system. The reference line, however, was derogatory.  
In my view, given the content of the email and the fact that it was a timely attempt  
to address the Union's objection to the behavior of some of WCS's employees, I view  
the reference line to be a poor choice of words by Crawford and not part of an attempt  
to persuade employees not to join the Union. It did not constitute a breach of Section  
6(1) of the Code.  
Condonation of Employee Conduct  
As sometimes occurs when a union begins to organize, there will be some  
employees who strongly support the union and others who are vehemently opposed.  
Such is the case at WCS. There were several incidents involving anti-union actions by  
WCS employees which the Union claims were condoned by the Employer and thus  
were a breach of the Code. I have considered them individually and taken the  
circumstances into account in the context of the Employer's other actions related to the  
Union, Anderson and Ratzlaff.  
The Union says the Employer condoned the following conduct by its employees:  
- Allowing employees to confront and interfere with the Union on Employer time  
with the full knowledge and awareness of management;  
- Failing to discipline employees engaged in overt, public anti-union conduct while  
being paid by the Employer; and by  
- Failing to investigate - or properly investigate the threat made against Mr.  
Ratzlaff and the keying of Mr. Anderson's personal vehicle.  
The Union acknowledges that while some of the Employer's actions may not  
when considered in isolation be considered a violation of the Code; however, when  
considered together, it says that the Employer's failure to properly investigate or take  
appropriate action demonstrates that the responses (or lack of them) were nothing more  
than a continuation of the Employer's own anti-union campaign and amount to unfair  
labour practices under the Code.  
- 32 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
March 9, 2022 Blockading Incident  
As noted more specifically described above, two WCS employees used their  
WCS trucks to blockade the Union's organizers in the cul-de-sac, in a manner that  
impeded their ability to easily speak to employees at the end of their shift at the  
organizing station they had set up on their trucks.  
The Union submits the Employer failed to take action to remove the trucks  
promptly and failed to take action against the employees to address their conduct in  
blockading the trucks and for refusing to move their trucks. It says that the Employer  
condoned their actions and, in any event, the employees use of WCS property to  
blockade the Union representatives was sufficient for the Board to find a breach of  
Section 6(1) of the Code. It relies on Cawston and Lordco for the proposition a lack of  
an appropriate employer response to employees engaged in anti-union conduct  
amounts to condonation of that conduct.  
The Union provided no authority for the suggestion that the mere use of  
employer property by an employee for anti-union purposes transposes that employee's  
actions to the employer without something further demonstrating the employer's  
involvement or condonation. The Board's law and policy do not extend so far as to  
support that argument.  
In my view, the use of employer property to commit an unfair labour practice,  
without the employer's involvement or acceptance, is insufficient to impose a finding that  
the employer has violated the unfair labour practices of the Code. Consequently,  
whether the Employer committed an unfair labour practice will be judged by the  
Employer's conduct (or lack thereof), not the mere fact that the employees happened to  
use WCS property to engage in improper acts against the Union and its organizers.  
There must be some link to the employer either overtly or by reasonable inference to  
demonstrate that the Employer was involved or approved of the anti-union conduct of  
the employees.  
In this case, there is no suggestion or evidence that the Employer directed the  
two employees to blockade the Union's organizers or that it did nothing at all when it  
became aware of the blockade. What occurred appears to have been actions,  
independently taken, by two employees who were not supportive of the Union. When  
management became aware of the situation, it took steps to attempt to have the drivers  
remove their vehicles, but they refused to do so and went home. Management then  
contacted its mechanics and directed them to remove the trucks from the cul-de-sac, as  
the mechanics possessed the necessary license to do so, and management did not. A  
short time after the Union representatives complained to management about the  
blockade, the mechanics arrived to move the trucks.  
While it is troubling that the drivers were not disciplined for their conduct and that  
management did not engage in non-disciplinary follow up with them or advise other  
employees not to repeat or participate in similar actions. That reflects a poor  
management decision, not condonation by the Employer of the employees' anti-union  
- 33 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
conduct. I accept that the Employer viewed the blockade as unacceptable and took  
steps to have the trucks removed. The drivers who engaged in the conduct would have  
known as much because the Employer asked them to remove the trucks and had them  
removed when the employees refused to do it themselves. I heard no evidence of  
anything similar being repeated. I find that the Employer did not condone its employees'  
anti-union conduct.  
March 9, 2022 Employee Counter-Organizing Incident  
Similarly, when employees who did not support the Union set up a counter-  
organizing station with coffee and donuts, management took steps to ensure that the  
employees who did so were not acting on employer paid time. The Employer told them  
that if they were on duty, they must return to work. The counter-organizing incident  
lasted only approximately fifteen minutes, in part because the Employer took steps to  
address its legitimacy. I find that the Employer did not condone or support the counter-  
organizing activities.  
Keying of Mr. Anderson's personal vehicle  
When Anderson reported that his personal vehicle had been vandalized, the  
manager to whom he reported it was upset about it having happened. The manager told  
Anderson that the surveillance cameras were not recording, and they had no way to  
identify who vandalized Anderson's vehicle. The Union says that the manager ought to  
have done more to investigate what happened. It is unclear what more the Employer  
could have done however to identify the culprit. While that is unfortunate that  
Anderson's vehicle was damaged and that the Employer did not have the means to  
identify who did it, that does not amount to condonation by the Employer of Anderson's  
vehicle being vandalized.  
Employer Response to Ratzlaff Complaint against Sibthorpe and Fitzgerald  
Ratzlaff was subjected to mistreatment by two employees, at least one of whom  
was unhappy that Ratzlaff was distributing union material in the employee lounge/locker  
area. The Employer's investigation was not as thorough as it could have been, and it  
accepted one of the employee's refusal to fully cooperate in the investigation. The  
Employer found, based on a deficient investigation that there was no bullying or  
harassment; but it then took steps to remind WCS's employees of their legal obligations  
regarding bullying and harassment and imposed the obligation to participate in bullying  
and harassment training on both the perpetrators of the mistreatment of Ratzlaff (i.e.,  
Sibthorpe and Fitzgerald) and on Ratzlaff, the victim of the mistreatment.  
The Employer's response to Ratzlaff's complaint is unusual. Cast in its best light,  
it is an example of a poorly conducted investigation, followed by an attempt to create a  
workplace free of bullying and harassment by reminding employees of their legal  
obligations to create a respectful environment. That however was contradicted by the  
Employer imposing the same negative consequences on the victim, as it did on the  
- 34 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
perpetrators. The Employer explained that this was done so the victim would know the  
training that Sibthorpe and Fitzgerald were required to take.  
Cast in a lesser light, the Employer chose not to fully investigate Ratzlaff's  
complaint and produced a report that was deficient because it did not want to find that  
the anti-union employees had engaged in bullying and harassment. Instead, their  
conduct was described as "unprofessional". As noted earlier, the Employer made this  
finding even though Ratzlaff's description of events were either corroborated by another  
employee, admitted to or uncontradicted and even though Sibthorpe refused to fully  
cooperate in the investigation.  
I accept that Evans spoke with Ratzlaff after her investigation and told him that  
she had investigated his complaints and that Ratzlaff told Evans that he was willing "to  
let bygones be bygones". It is most likely that, seeing Ratzlaff was prepared to let the  
situation be and Fitzgerald said that he would be professional in his dealings with  
Ratzlaff in the future, Evans believed that the situation had sufficiently de-escalated and  
that posting educational information about employee responsibilities was a sufficient  
I also note that the Employer, and Evans in particular, is inexperienced in dealing  
with the kind of behavior that Ratzlaff complained about and was inexperienced in  
dealing with an employee who refused to participate in an investigation.  
I find that on a balance of probabilities, although a close call, it is most likely that  
the Employer's response was simply a ham-handed attempt to deal with the situation.  
The response was appropriate in some respects (e.g., the posting of educational  
material that expressly dealt with bullying and harassment) and woefully inadequate in  
other respects.  
I accept the Union's submission that an inadequate response to anti-union  
conduct could amount to condonation. In Lordco, the Employer did nothing to stop the  
anti-union conduct of its employees. The Board found that failure to act when it was  
aware of the employees' anti-union conduct "implicitly condoned the employees' action"  
(para. 50).  
The circumstances here are somewhat different than in Lordco. Here, the  
Employer was not present when the anti-union conduct was ongoing (unlike in Lordco).  
Moreover, in this case, the Employer took some steps to address the situation (it  
investigated the Complaint, albeit poorly, and took a non-disciplinary educational  
approach to its response). I cannot conclude that the Employer condoned Sibthorpe and  
Fitzgerald's conduct toward Ratzlaff. While the response could have been stronger, it is  
not clear that a disciplinary response would have been what Ratzlaff would have  
wanted. Imposing discipline on Sibthorpe and Fitzgerald would have been inconsistent  
with Ratzlaff's stated desire to let bygones be bygones. Consequently, I conclude that  
the Employer's response to Ratzlaff's complaint was not a breach of Section 6(1) of the  
- 35 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
March 16, 2022 Cul-De-Sac Confrontation  
The last incident that the Union says amounted to condonation of employee anti-  
union conduct involved a driver, who had blockaded the Union organizers' trucks on  
March 9, 2022. This driver again pulled his WCS truck up close to the Union organizers'  
trucks and honked at them. He then got out of his truck and angrily told the organizers  
that they were in his way and could not park there. The situation continued for a short  
time and was observed by a manager, Sandhu, from WCS' property. Sandhu did not  
intervene or go out to see what was happening. The office staff were gathered at the  
Office window observing the incident, and Sandhu's lack of response to it.  
The Employer says that it was proper for Sandhu not to step in and inject himself  
into what it described as a conversation between an employee and union organizers. It  
notes that Sandhu could not hear what was being said and mainly was concerned that  
the employee did not leave his truck blocking the Union's organizers as he had  
previously done. The Employer argues that absent a link between what the employee  
did and the Employer, there is no basis to find that the Employer condoned the  
employee's conduct.  
The Union did not seriously dispute this but says that the link was Sandhu's  
failure to intervene when he could see that the employee was behaving angrily toward  
the Union's organizers. It says that the cases cited by the Employer all support the  
Union's position that the Employer condoned the employee's anti-union behaviour,  
which was seen by staff in the Office.  
I agree with the Union that Sandhu ought to have done something to intervene  
and indicate that the employee's actions were not acceptable. By doing nothing, he  
signaled that the Employer was tacitly approving of the employee's actions. This  
situation was markedly different from the circumstances giving rise to the investigation  
of Ratzlaff's complaint, which the Employer had not opportunity to intervene while it was  
I find that Sandhu's inaction amounted to a violation of Section 6(1) of the Code,  
as the Employer condoned the employee's anti-union behavior.  
The Union has requested the Board make a declaration that the Employer has  
breached Sections 5(1)(c), 6(1), 6(3)(d) and 9 of the Code. I have made declarations  
above, where appropriate.  
The Union also requests that the Board make an order certifying the Union as the  
bargaining agent for "a unit of employees, except office and sales staff employed by the  
Employer.", and any other orders necessary to remedy the breaches of the Code.  
The Code grants the Board broad remedial authority where a breach of the Code  
is found to have occurred. Section 14(4.1) of the Code provides a discretion in the  
- 36 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
Board to grant what is commonly referred to as a remedial certification, i.e., a  
certification granted regardless of whether the union could demonstrate sufficient  
support to be certified otherwise. There are three factors that Section 14(4.1) directs  
must be present, namely:  
(a) the employees are seeking trade union representation;  
(b) a person is doing or has done an act prohibited by section 5, 6,  
7 or 9, and  
(c) the board believes it is just and equitable in order to remedy the  
consequences of the prohibited act.  
In this case, at least two employees were seeking trade union representation  
(Anderson and Ratzlaff). I have already declared that the Employer had engaged in  
conduct that was prohibited by sections 6 and 9 of the Code. Consequently, the first two  
factors are met.  
The final factor, whether "the Board believes it is just and equitable in order to  
remedy the consequences of the prohibited act" was discussed, along with the purpose  
underlying the Board's authority to grant a remedial certification, in its leading decision  
Salade Etcetera! Inc. (A Division of Vegpro International), 2020 BCLRB 109 (Leave for  
Reconsideration of, 2020 BCLRB 34) ("Salade Etcetera!"). The Salade Etcetera! panel  
adopted comments from earlier decisions that confirmed the purpose of a remedial  
certification is to preserve the right of employees to freely choose whether to be  
represented by a trade union. The Board, in that case, recognized that termination of  
key organizers at the outset of the organizing campaign, a "hit hard, hit early" approach,  
was the kind of action that Section 14(4.1) was designed to address. I will discuss below  
the implications of the fact that the panel in 2022 BCLRB 13 did not issue a remedial  
certification when the Employer fired Anderson.  
In Salade Etcetera!, the panel made the following comments regarding the  
factors relevant to the Board's consideration of whether the circumstances are such that  
it is just and equitable to grant a remedial certification:  
The seriousness of the unfair labour practice, assessed  
objectively in terms of its effect on the Board's ability to ascertain  
the true wishes of employees by way of a representation vote.  
The factual context surrounding the unfair labour practice, including  
the point or stage of the organizing campaign when the breach  
occurred and any circumstances which mitigated or exacerbated its  
Whether a different remedy would adequately address the  
consequences of the unfair labour practice and whether it would  
have a sufficient deterrent effect. As stated in the Report, an  
appropriate remedy also needs to provide deterrence, so as not to  
become merely a "licence fee" for breaching the Code.  
- 37 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
These factors are not intended to be a comprehensive  
checklist, and some may be more relevant or significant than  
others in any given case. They are simply intended to give general  
guidance as to the approach the Board may take in applying the  
new language of Section 14 of the Code.  
(paras. 64-65)  
The Employer argues that it would not be just and equitable to order a remedial  
certification here and that Salade Etcetera! did not view a remedial certification as a  
foregone conclusion where there has been an unfair labour practice finding. It says that  
any unfair labour practice the Employer may be found to have committed "were so mild  
in severity and would have had a negligible impact on the Union's ability to organize  
employees that it would not be just and equitable to order remedial certification." It notes  
that Ratzlaff was not dissuaded from continuing to organize after his interactions with  
Dasanjh and there was no evidence that any employee actually witnessed the March 8,  
2022 Donut Incident, so it could not have had a "chilling effect" on the Union's  
organizing drive. In short, it says that the conduct was "very limited in scope and the  
number of employees that could be influenced by it".  
I begin my assessment of the last factor by noting that Dasanjh, the owner of  
WCS, is at the centre of a number of the breaches of the Code that I have found to have  
occurred. He plays an important role in the business and prides himself on the influence  
he wields with his employees. The evidence was clear that he regularly openly engages  
with them, and his interactions are intended to impact the morale of the workforce. What  
he says and does matters. Dasanjh's anti-union actions, occurring almost immediately  
following the Board's reinstatement of Anderson to employment, reflect a disregard for  
the fundamental principle of the Code that employees have the freedom to choose  
whether to be represented by a trade union and the right not to be subjected to  
intimidation and coercion in the exercise of those rights. That includes employees like  
Anderson and Ratzlaff.  
Dasanjh's demonstrated utter contempt for the Code and the Board's authority  
under it during the hearing. He was, at times unwilling and reluctant to answer some  
questions, evasive and non-responsive to other questions that were appropriately put to  
him in cross-examination. He was directed by this panel, on more than one occasion, to  
answer the questions put to him and only did so, in some cases, reluctantly. He was  
contemptuous of union counsel in cross-examination and of the Board's process at  
times. When Dasanjh was confronted with obviously conflicting answers he had given  
he stated that he had no explanation for his different answers and admitted that he was  
being dishonest. The following provides an example. Dasanjh acknowledged in cross-  
examination that there are laws and legal rules with which WCS is required to comply  
and that it endeavoured to do so, including the obligations set out by the Board in 2022  
BCLRB 13. He testified that he had not read the entire decision, but had been educated  
by his lawyers and his General Manager about the decision. While he acknowledged he  
was aware WCS was found by the Board to have broken the law when it terminated  
Anderson's employment, he did not believe WCS broke the law. Later, Dasanjh testified  
- 38 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
that he was not aware of a prior decision issued by the Board about WCS, despite  
having previously testified he was familiar with 2022 BCLRB 13. When it was put to him  
by Union counsel that this answer contradicted his previous testimony and asked for an  
explanation, Dasanjh stated that he did not give an honest answer and had no  
explanation for being dishonest.  
As noted above, Dasanjh views his connection to WCS very personally. When  
asked if he wanted WCS to be unionized, Dasanjh testified that he did not wish that and  
was a good leader and that people trusted him. He stated he does not believe there is  
any benefit to his employees in joining a union and could not conceive of someone  
thinking that a trade union could be of benefit to them. Dasanjh testified that if his  
employees trust and respect him, they will not want or need a union. He expressed the  
view during his evidence that employees do not need to join a union because, if they  
wish to improve their financial or workplace circumstances, they could deal with him  
Dasanjh was clear in his testimony that if his employees wanted to unionize WCS  
he would rather that they work somewhere else. The following exchange in cross-  
examination is indicative of Dasanjh's views regarding trade unions and his employees'  
desire to bring a union to WCS:  
You don't think it's a positive thing for the business?  
I'm not saying not positive, just that there is no reason for  
You think it's important for people to trust and respect  
you, for your employees to trust and respect you?  
And you say if they do trust and respect you, they won't  
unionize, and you take that personally?  
Yes, I do. No, wait, I want to change that. No, I don't take  
it personally. If they don't trust and respect me, they are  
more than welcome to exit.  
You don't take it personally, they can just leave?  
I have found that the Employer engaged in numerous serious unfair labour  
practices since Anderson was reinstated. They were not "mild in severity" as the  
Employer asserts. They represented a continued attack on the Union's lead inside  
organizer and an attempt to prevent another employee from assisting the Union. The  
Employer's actions included a threat of a difficult future for that employee and a  
suggestion that he should not be working for WCS if he supported the union.  
- 39 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
The Employer's actions represent an attempt to achieve the same objective as  
terminating Anderson would have achieved, namely, the removal of him as an influence  
in the workplace. The Employer was given a second chance to avoid remedial  
certification by the panel in 2022 BCLRB 13. Rather than accepting that its employees  
have a right to freely decide for themselves whether to be represented by a trade union,  
the Employer continue its anti-union strategy, which became "hit hard, hit early, hit  
often". It is important to keep in mind that the new unfair labour practices took place a  
very short time after Anderson was reinstated and before the Union could reasonably  
conduct the meeting with the employees that the Board had ordered. The Employer's  
unfair labour practices effectively undermined the Board's previous remedial orders.  
I am satisfied that a different remedy would not adequately address the  
consequences of the Employer's actions. A different remedy was already tried with this  
employer. It does not get a second bite of the apple. The Employer has demonstrated  
that a different remedy would not provide a deterrent to the Employer so that future  
unfair labour practices would be avoided. I have no confidence that this Employer would  
not continue its assault on the employees' right to exercise their rights under the Code.  
This is reinforced by the Employer's contempt for his employees' Code rights.  
For the reasons set out above, I order that pursuant to Section 14(4.1) of the  
Code, the Union is certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for a bargaining unit  
described as:  
All employees employed by the Employer at and from 51 Glacier  
Street Coquitlam, BC and its North Vancouver, BC location, except  
office and sales staff.  
The Union indicated that it wished that any collective agreement be required to  
be accepted by the employees. I, therefore, order that any collective agreement  
negotiated by the parties be submitted to the employees for ratification.  
I also make the following remedial orders in support of the remedial certification.  
1. The Employer will, within 5 business days, of this decision give the Union  
a list of names of the bargaining unit employees and their contact  
information, which shall include phone numbers and email addresses. If  
the Employer hires new employees following the provision of that list, it will  
provide the Union with the names and the same contact type of  
information for the new hires, on an ongoing basis while it is certified.  
2. The Employer will within seven days of this decision, provide the Union  
with a copy of any employee handbook or similar document and any  
documents that describe the employees current terms and conditions of  
employment and the Employer will be responsive to any inquiries of the  
Union regarding those the terms and condition of employment currently in  
- 40 -  
2022 BCLRB 91  
3. The Employer will, within seven business days of this decision, install a  
bulletin board, for the Union's exclusive use, in the employee lounge or  
such other location as the parties may mutually agree. The Union shall be  
permitted regular access to maintain the bulletin board.  
4. The Employer will, on or before September 15, 2022, permit the Union, on  
two occasions, access to the employee lounge (or such other location as  
the parties may mutually agree) for up to two hours to be able to speak  
with bargaining unit employees. The time of the access shall be as  
requested by the Union, provided that the access shall not interfere with  
the regular work schedules of the bargaining unit employees.  
For the reasons given, the Union's application is allowed. The Employer violated  
Sections 6 and 9 of the Code. It is just and reasonable to grant a remedial certification  
and the orders set out above in support of that certification. I remain seized of any  
issues related to the implementation of the above orders.  
If there are issues related to inclusion and exclusion of employees from the  
bargaining unit, the parties are encouraged to contact the Deputy Registrar, who will  
appoint one of the Board's Special Investigating Officers to attempt to assist the parties  
to resolve their differences, failing which they may apply to the Board to have the issues  

© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission