The British Columbia Labour Relations Board has dismissed a worker’s complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation, finding the application was filed prematurely while the grievance process remains ongoing.
The worker filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Labour Relations Code against United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 1-1937, alleging the union failed to properly represent her in a workplace harassment grievance against Island Timberlands Limited Partnership.
The worker had filed a formal complaint under the employer’s Respect in the Workplace Policy on approximately Jan. 11, 2025, alleging bullying, harassment, discrimination and sexual harassment by co-workers and managers. The employer retained a consulting company to investigate the complaint in January and February 2025, with an investigation report provided to the employer on March 3, 2025.
On March 23, 2025, the worker contacted the union indicating she wanted to file a grievance to require the employer to provide her with a safe workplace so she could return to work. The union provided her with a grievance form, information about relevant collective agreement provisions, filing instructions and details about what information the union would need to assess a grievance. The union also told her to contact them if she required assistance completing the form.
The worker filed the grievance directly with the employer on April 22, 2025, and copied the union. The grievance alleged the investigation was inadequate and that the employer violated and continues to violate the collective agreement and health and safety laws by allowing harassment to occur against women and not taking proper action to investigate and respond to the harassment.
Between approximately April 30, 2025, and June 19, 2025, the grievance proceeded through the grievance procedure in the collective agreement but was not resolved. On June 19, 2025, the union referred the grievance to arbitration. By agreement of the union and employer’s lawyers, an arbitrator was appointed on approximately July 29, 2025, to hear the grievance. Arbitration hearing dates are scheduled for Oct. 1, 2 and 6, 2026.
The worker argued the union acted arbitrarily by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into the grievance. She also alleged the union’s representation was discriminatory because she was assigned a steward who was named in her original complaint and received significantly less support than male co-workers with similar or less serious claims.
The worker further alleged the union acted in bad faith by misrepresenting key facts about the grievance and the grievance process, providing contradictory or misleading information, failing to communicate important updates and repeatedly discouraging her from asserting her rights. She also said the union had not accommodated her disabilities in the course of representing her through the grievance process.
The union argued the application should be dismissed on its merits. Alternatively, the union said the application should be dismissed as premature because the grievance had been referred to arbitration and was scheduled for hearing in October 2026. The employer was invited to file submissions but indicated it took no position.
The tribunal found the application was premature and dismissed it accordingly. The board determined the union’s representation must be assessed as a whole, which may include the process of the union proceeding to arbitration on the grievance or choosing to resolve the grievance prior to completion of the arbitration process.
“It is possible that the completion of the grievance process, including potentially the completion of the arbitration process, may resolve many of the [worker’s] concerns,” the tribunal noted, citing previous decisions.
The board explained that a Section 12 application is generally dismissed as premature when it is filed prior to the completion of the grievance process, including an arbitration proceeding, and prior to the applicant exhausting any available internal union appeals with respect to a union’s decision on a grievance.
Once the union has completed its representation of the worker with respect to the grievance, including exhausting any internal appeals of the union’s final decision on the grievance, the worker may re-file a Section 12 application regarding the grievance, the tribunal said.
For more information, see (Plaintiff), 2025 BCLRB 227 (CanLII)
