Cherry packing
Members of the BC Tree Fruits Cooperative say the battle for control of the BC Tree Fruits Co-operative is not over.
The BCTF Co-op has been the focus of a bitter battle after the organization’s board decided to cancel the construction of a new packing house in Kelowna. Instead, the co-operative decided to invest in an upgrade of a packing house in Oliver, while also closing another existing packing house in Lake Country.
That enraged growers, particularly in the northern half of the valley, who say it will increase transportation costs, cause more damage to their fruit, and cost jobs for packing house workers.
As a result, a large number of growers launched a drive to replace the current board of directors.
That took place in two stages, the first being at a Special General Meeting in late November, where 64.9 per cent of growers voted to remove the board.
However, such a vote requires a super majority of 66.6 per cent to succeed.
“You needed a super majority and the vote was 64.9 per cent to dissolve the board, but that is two percentage points lower than what was needed,” said East Kelowna grower Surinder Gosal. “It’s really unfortunate but the numbers weren’t quite there for that.”
As that motion failed, some growers advanced a second motion that would have changed the nomination process for the BCTF board of directors, and allowed opponents to run in the December AGM.
However, that motion also failed.
At the Special General Meeting on November the 22nd, there was a resolution put forward to make significant changes to the nomination process,” explained BCTF CEO Warren Sarafinchan. “That resolution did not receive the required support to pass, so the current nominations process will continue to be in place.”
A total of 152 growers voted, out of a total membership of 215.
That set the stage for a second confrontation at the organization’s
Annual General Meeting in mid-December.
As no slate of nominees was advanced by those opposing the current board, Sarafinchan said the nominees that had been advanced during the co-operative’s nomination process were acclaimed, with no opposition.
“The co-operative has a very thorough nomination process for directors where qualifications range from the contract type that you have with the co-operative through to the quality of fruit that the growers produce,” Sarafinchan said. “So, there were five vacancies, and there were five directors who agreed to sit on the board, and basically were acclaimed into those roles at the December 12 AGM.”
But the process also angered many of those growers who opposed the packing house plan. “The AGM happened but the membership was dissatisfied with the board, and voted to dissolve the Annual General Meeting with a vote of about 70 per cent,” said Gosal. “We felt the election of the directors was basically coerced by the board, so the membership was extremely frustrated and voted to reconvene (the AGM) at a later date.
Basically, you saw the membership rejecting the meeting minutes of the AGM and voting to adjourn the AGM, so there was clearly strong dissatisfaction with the current board.”
BCTF attempted to complete the AGM on Jan. 20, but once again the meeting was adjourned with matters still outstanding.
“Unfortunately the meeting was adjourned before we could have those discussions,” Sarafinchan said. As a result, the AGM will have to be resumed yet again.
But Sarafinchan says one thing that is not on the table is the status of the current board, as the election was completed before the meeting was adjourned.
“The core requirements of what needed to be dealt with at the AGM were complete, and the director elections are complete,” Sarafinchan explained. “There there were some new business items that were raised that we were not able to address … because the meeting was adjourned.
“So this next meeting, this next AGM will effectively be a discussion on those new items that were raised.”
While the BCTF says the election is complete, Gosal says some growers are questioning how that could happen when the full AGM was not carried out, and he believes many will question whether the election is valid or not.
As well, Gosal says growers like him will be voicing their anger that BCTF refuses to reconsider the packing house plan, despite discontent in a much of the membership.
“Where the situation is at right now is that the membership wants to have their voice heard, and the board is chosen not to listen to their voice. That’s what’s happening in a nutshell right now,” Gosal said. “They’re refusing to discuss this issue, and we’re not happy about it.”
Sarafinchan, however, said the BCTF management and board are reaching out to members to discuss the plan, hoping to address some of the concerns raised by growers.
“I’ve talked to a number of growers who were very supportive of the plans that we have. They want to simply see the changes being implemented,” Sarafinchan said. “I’ve also talked to growers that continue to have questions and our commitment is, you know, we’ll answer any question that we can and we’ve already had some good questions around things in areas such as the impact of increased transportation costs.”
Since the December meeting took place, for example, Sarafinchan says the team has done an analysis to see if the longer transportation route will increase costs, and more importantly, damage fruit in transit to the Oliver packing house.
“There was a question that growers had about, will our fruits be damaged more by transit from the north to the south? And the answer to that is no,” Sarafinchan said. “We’ve done multiple tests now that have demonstrated that there is no increased damage and it’s also an interesting fact that we already ship a lot of fruit from the north to the south and the south to the north.
“So, while there are some increased transportation costs, we found that the benefits of operating with one facility with world class packing and grading equipment far outweigh the small increase in transportation costs,” Sarafinchan added.
The co-op hopes to have all of the renovations at the Oliver packing house completed in time for the 2024 apple harvest.
“I think we’re all saying the same thing about the need to improve the financial situation of tree fruit growers in the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys,” Sarafinchan said. “So we need to make sure that everything that we do, and all the investments that are being made and the timelines that we’re working with, are all designed to improve those returns as quickly as possible. So that needs to be your focus, and we’re confident that the plan we put forward to our members will do that.
