Students at the last Student Union Annual General Meeting (AGM), held on Wednesday, May 15, raised concerns over alleged misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) between SUS managers and student employees, passing an amended motion that hopes to address the problem.
A student in attendance claimed that an unspecified manager at the Student Union Society (SUS) implied legal action may be taken if concerns regarding their employment with SUS were brought forward. The concerns included behaviours witnessed and treatment during employment.
The four part motion passed at the meeting requested that SUS provide clarification for employees and instruction for managers on the legal bounds of the signed agreements. Any disputes over the scope of the NDA would be determined by a third party arbitrator.
The motion also requested that SUS reach out to employees within the last five years who have voiced concern with SUS in order to fulfill the first three parts of the motion. During the discussion proceeding the motion amendment, several students expressed concern regarding the lack of response received from SUS over previous complaints.
Tripat Sandhu, SUS president, did not comment on whether an investigation into the claims would take place, but did state over email that in carrying out the motion, concerns of previous and current employees will be addressed and resolved.
“At the AGM, it was clarified that NDAs do not stop individuals from bringing up any illegal activity or employee misuse; therefore, persons can bring forth any claims which are not law-abiding to the proper authority,” Sandhu said.
The final AGM on Wednesday, May 15 was conducted after a motion to rescind past NDAs at the April 5 AGM was tabled, requiring the follow up. The motion to rescind past NDA’s at the request of any previous or current SUS employee brought up legal concerns from the SUS executive team.
NDAs, or confidentiality agreements, are agreements signed by a party to not disclose information they will be working with, which can include business ventures, trade secrets, and confidential data. NDAs do not protect against criminal activity.
SUS was requested to bring legal council to the May 15 AGM to advise on the legal function of an NDA. SUS lawyer Jason Koshman, who has experience advising multiple student unions in B.C. on labor employment and contract laws, attended and presented on the function of NDAs.
Questions were raised by students on information an NDA can cover, and if the signed agreement could prevent an employee from coming forward with concerns over their treatment or behaviours witness during employment.
Koshman said that NDAs are used to prevent sensitive information, data, and business plans from being released by employees. NDAs could not be used to prevent someone from speaking out about employment dissatisfaction, if the person does not reveal information covered by the agreement, or about a crime.
“There’s nothing really onerous about [the NDA] I saw up on the screen and it’s in line with what I’ve seen over my career,” Koshman said, after SUS had presented an unsigned copy of the NDA in question.
There were also questions on the vague nature of the original motion to rescind all previous NDAs. The reason given was to allow dissatisfied employees to speak to their labour board without fear of being sued. A student in the audience also claimed that SUS had not presented them with a copy of the NDA to review, so they could not motion to rescind specific clauses of the agreement.
SUS presented the students with a copy of the NDA at audience request. After a brief recess, it was motioned to strike the original motion to rescind NDAs and replace it with the four part motion.
Although the motion is likely unbinding, Sandhu said that SUS will follow through on the terms of the motion. The B.C. Societies Act states that directors of a society are responsible for the management of the society subject to the societies act and the societies bylaws, and the substance of the motion is not covered by SUS bylaws.
“SUS acknowledges that regardless of legal obligation, the newly passed motions are valid concerns brought forward by members,” Sandhu said over email. “SUS will take every necessary action to ensure the motions are implemented and carried out in an appropriate and timely manner.”
Amended motion passed at the May 15 AGM.
- Clarification to SUS employees (past), upon requisition of all legal documents of which they sign. Clarification to SUS employees (present & future), of all legal documents which they sign.
- SUS Managers, present and future, must be informed of the scope of legally binding agreements signed between SUS, their employees (past, present, and future) and all other persons.
- If a dispute arises concerning the scope of a non-disclosure agreement (also known as a confidentiality agreement) signed between the SUS and any persons, the scope of the NDA will be determined by a third-party arbitrator.
- SUS actively reach out to present & past SUS employees who have voiced concerns with the SUS, within the last five years in good faith effort such as by emails to fulfill the previous clauses (1,2,3).
Correction: February 4th, 2020
A previous version of this story incorrectly stated SUS President Tripat Sandhu’s name as Tripat Sidhu.
