A human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 258 (IBEW) has been dismissed by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which found no reasonable prospect the complaint would succeed.
The complaint, filed by J.M., centred around the union’s response to allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and threats by her co-worker, G.G., at Power Flagging & Traffic Control Inc.
The union had been accused of failing to assist J.M., treating her abusively, disbelieving her allegations, and protecting the interests of the company and her co-worker.
The tribunal’s ruling focused on whether the union’s actions, or lack thereof, constituted discrimination based on sex under section 14 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code. For discrimination to be proven, three elements needed to be established: that the complainant had a protected personal characteristic (in this case, sex), that they were adversely impacted in their union membership, and that their protected characteristic was a factor in this adverse impact.
Allegations of abusive treatment
J.M. alleged the union’s business manager verbally abused her, calling her a liar and stating she was “full of shit” upon her disclosure that criminal charges had been approved against G.G.
Although the tribunal acknowledged such remarks could potentially be discriminatory if linked to gender-related stigma, it found no evidence connecting the comments to J.M.’s sex. Instead, it appeared the comments arose from a misunderstanding related to the status of criminal charges against G.G.
Union’s disbelief in allegations
J.M. also claimed the union did not believe her allegations and sided with her employer and the accused co-worker. However, the tribunal determined that her claims regarding the union’s disbelief were speculative and unsupported by the evidence provided, describing them as remaining “in the realm of conjecture.”
Alleged failure to provide support
Central to J.M.’s complaint was the allegation that IBEW failed to adequately support her when she reported the sexual misconduct. J.M. stated that the union advised her it could not assist because the issue was a criminal matter, outside of the union’s jurisdiction. Conversely, the union maintained it had made several attempts to communicate with J.M. and requested additional details to proceed, but claimed J.M. failed to respond.
The tribunal acknowledged concerns about the adequacy of the union’s response, recognizing the union’s potential role in addressing workplace harassment through grievance procedures or advocating for a proper investigation by the employer.
Despite this, the tribunal emphasized that its role was not to judge the quality of union representation but to assess whether there was evidence of discrimination based on sex. The tribunal found no evidentiary basis suggesting J.M.’s sex influenced the union’s alleged inadequacies in providing support.
Protection of employer and co-worker
Lastly, J.M. accused the union of protecting Power Flagging and G.G., alleging that the union had promised to revoke G.G.’s membership but failed to do so. The tribunal found this claim was specific but lacked any connection to J.M.’s sex and thus had no reasonable chance of success.
Tribunal’s conclusion
Ultimately, the tribunal ruled there was no reasonable prospect that J.M.’s complaint would succeed under section 14, resulting in its dismissal. However, J.M.’s separate complaint against Power Flagging and G.G. will proceed to a hearing.
For more information, see Mohr v. Power Flagging & Traffic Control Inc. (Power Earth) and others (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 13 (CanLII).
