- June 9, 2021
- Jurisdiction/Cases Involving Rival Unions
Vancouver Musicians Association v American Federation of Musicians, concerns a dispute between a local union, the Vancouver Musicians Associations (“VMA” or “local”) operating in British Columbia, and their international parent, the American Federation of Musicians (“AFM” or “international”). The VMA was a recognized trade union and party to several collective agreements as a local of the AFM.
The dispute arose after VMA (the local) negotiated a collective agreement that included a “buyout” clause that the parent international believed that the VMA did not have authority to negotiate. A “buyout” clause is a provision where “musicians engaged to record music do not retain residual rights or receive payments for future uses of the recording, but instead receive additional fees up front as prepayment for such rights.” The international always required their agreements to contain restrictions on the future use of music recorded, which the buyout clause directly contravened. When the AFM discovered the inclusion of the buyout clause imposed a trusteeship and took over the affairs of the AFM. Additionally the executive of the VMA were removed and disciplinary proceedings were commenced against them.
The parties brought their dispute before the BC Labour Relations Board who had decided that not only was the collective agreement not a collective agreement because the VMA did not have authority to negotiate the buyout clause because of Article 15 based on the AFM bylaws, but the VMA was also found to not be a trade union because of the limit placed on their ability to make key bargaining decision by Article 15 of the AFM Bylaws.
The VMA then proceeded against the AFM in the Supreme Court of BC. There were two issues before the court: (1) Was Article 15, section 6 (b) of the AFM Bylaws, which limits the locals’ jurisdiction from entering into any agreement providing for any type of electronic media production without written consent, enforceable against the VMA and its members; and (2) Should the trusteeship be set aside?
Justice Ross decided that Article 15 section 6 (b) of the AFM Bylaws was unenforceable as against the VMA or any of its members, and that the trusteeship should be set aside, but did not allow the petitioners to set aside the decisions of the AFM during the trusteeship, or restrain the AFM from any further interference with their activities. Justice Ross held because the Labour Board had ruled that the VMA was not a trade union as a result of Article 15 of the Bylaws, which limited their decision making power, this created a conflict in the interpretation and application of the AFM Bylaws.
Justice Ross decided that Article 15 s 6 (b) was unenforceable because it nullified the central purpose of the AFM Bylaws as a whole. This particular article formed the basis for the Labour Board declaration that the VMA is not a trade union and therefore unable to enter into collective agreements on their members behalf. This ran completely contrary to the stated mission and purpose of the AFM and their locals, to extend the benefits of union membership, as well as their duties to their members to provide better wages and working conditions through the use of collective agreements. She held that
“this relegation of a member local to bargain outside the protection of the statutory scheme, without the status of a trade union, [was] not consistent with the intention of the AFM Bylaws when read as a whole.”
Article 15 s 6 (b) conflicted with the “dominate purpose” of the bylaws. The only way to “preserve the primary purpose” of the bylaws was to declare the Article void and unenforceable, which is what she did.
As a result of Justice Ross’s decision on Article 15 st 6 (b) the central basis for the imposition of the trusteeship no longer existed. She ruled that because Article 15 s 6 (b) was unenforceable in the jurisdiction the trusteeship had to be set aside.[1] Without Article 15 s 6 (b) the local had not violated any valid or enforceable Bylaws or Regulations. The International therefore had no reason to intervene. No valid rules had been broken and therefore there was no basis anymore for the trusteeship.
Because the court declined jurisdiction over whether the VMA is a trade union deferring to the Labour Board’s Declaration holding that the VMA is not a trade union, the VMA, the decision leaves the VMA in a paradoxical situation of existing in some respect but not as a trade union with the protection of the statutory scheme of the Labour Act. Notwithstanding that the Court declined jurisdiction, it noted that the Board when making its decision did not have the benefit of the instant decision nullifying Article 15 s. 6 of the By-laws. In so doing, it also noted, that the Parties are still making submissions to the Board in this respect.
[1] Ibid.