
February 08, 2023
After a breakdown in negotiations to create a jointly sponsored defined benefit pension plan for all employees and the creation of an employer sponsored defined benefit plan for non-unionized employees, the British Columbia General Employees’ Union (BCGEU) brought an action for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) the tort of conversion. BCGEU also applied for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the employer, Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (Vancity), from proceeding with the plan for non-unionized employees.
This was based on BCGEU’s view that the letter of agreement with Vancity was an agreement for the design and implementation of a jointly sponsored defined benefit pension plan. Vancity took the position that this letter of agreement was merely an agreement to try to agree and, when discussions on implementation broke down, that it was permissible for them to sponsor a defined benefit pension plan for their non-unionized employees.
This decision only concerns the application for an interlocutory injunction so the Court applied the previously established three-part test: (1) whether the claim that forms the basis for the injunction raises a serious question to be tried; (2) consideration of whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if there is no injunction; and (3) whether the balance of convenience favours injunctive relief.
The BC Supreme Court rejected BCGEU’s application on the basis that while their claim did raise a serious question to be tried in relation to breach of contract, they were not able to establish that they would suffer irreparable harm as non-unionized employees participating in a pension plan does not harm unionized employees. Further, the relief sought by an injunction is not related to the relief they could claim at trial which is limited to damages.
To read the full details of the case, click on more information below: