An employer’s refusal to provide pension plan information to a union breached its duty to bargain in good faith, the British Columbia Labour Relations Board has ruled, though the tribunal rejected broader claims the company was deliberately stalling negotiations.
The board ordered Richmond Elevator Maintenance to disclose outstanding pension documentation to the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local Union No. 82, but declined to impose stricter bargaining schedules requested by the union.
The union was certified in September 2024 and requested pension information before the first bargaining session. In December 2024, it specifically requested annual information returns, actuarial valuation reports and audited financial statements under the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
The employer failed to provide the information. The BC Financial Services Authority levied a $15,000 fine against the company in June 2025 for not producing the documents within 30 days.
“Under Section 11, Employers have a prima facie duty to disclose information related to existing terms and conditions of employment, which I find includes information about existing pension plans,” the board stated. “Here, the Employer’s failure to produce the Pension Information constitutes a breach of Section 11.”
The tribunal issued a declaration the employer breached Section 11(1) of the Labour Relations Code and ordered disclosure of any outstanding pension information.
Union’s broader claims dismissed
The union argued the employer took an obstructionist approach to bargaining by limiting sessions and refusing to table wage proposals over 10 months of negotiations. It requested the board order at least five consecutive full days of bargaining per month.
The parties met for two or three consecutive days each month since certification. The employer’s owner initially insisted on ending sessions by 1 p.m. or 2 p.m. and cancelled multiple bargaining dates in October and December 2024.
Starting in March 2025, the employer generally attended full-day sessions.
The board found the employer bore some responsibility for delays but determined this did not constitute bad faith bargaining.
“Absent any other explanation from the Employer, the fact that [the owner] was able to attend bargaining until the end of the business day from March 2025 onward strongly suggests that his previous insistence on ending bargaining by 2:00 p.m. at the latest was not an imperative but, rather, a preference,” the tribunal stated.
However, the board said three consecutive days of bargaining per month — representing approximately 14 per cent of monthly business days — did not suggest the employer lacked intent to conclude a collective agreement in this case.
“Section 11 is not intended to speed up bargaining where a party is dissatisfied with the pace of progress; rather it provides recourse where the party opposite the applicant is frustrating the process,” the board stated.
Wage proposals and standard agreement
By the July 2025 hearing date, the parties had tentatively agreed to seven articles but the employer had not tabled wage proposals. The employer’s owner said he wanted to understand the entire agreement first because various provisions had monetary implications.
The union provided its standard collective agreement for companies not affiliated with the National Elevator and Escalator Association. The union’s business manager testified that independent employers typically agree to the same terms negotiated between the union and the association.
The employer requested explanations for provisions it did not understand. The union’s business manager agreed in testimony the union had explained the standard agreement to “the best of our ability” but the employer still had outstanding questions.
The tribunal found the employer’s approach reasonable.
“While the Union says that the Employer can provide counter-offers without fully understanding the Union proposals, I do not agree that this process would foster a rational process of collective bargaining,” the board stated.
The tribunal noted the union’s strategy was to counter employer proposals with language matching the standard agreement as closely as possible.
“Whatever delay is attributable to the Employer, I find that it is so intertwined with the Union’s own approach that it would not be fair or just to assign responsibility to the Employer and to find a breach of Section 11(1),” the board stated.
The tribunal declined to grant additional remedies beyond ordering disclosure of pension information.
For more information, see Richmond Elevator Maintenance Ltd., 2025 BCLRB 254 (CanLII).
