Unions cannot sign away the rights of a member to take a grievance to another agency or tribunal when negotiating a settlement with an employer, according to a recent BC Labour Relations Board ruling.
“I do not find that the union’s exclusive bargaining agency under Section 27 of the (Labour Relations) Code extends to granting the employer a release of liability from statutory claims belonging to the applicant which are outside the scope of the union’s exclusive bargaining agency over collective agreement matters,” board vice-chairman Rene-John Nicolas said in his Jan. 2 decision.
As well, Nicolas took the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local No. 993 to task for signing a severance agreement for a female employee that she did not agree with as it had ramifications on her ability to find work.
While unions can sign off on agreements on behalf of a member, it must be done in a way that considers the employee. Section 12 of the code prohibits a union from representing employees in a bargaining unit in an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith manner.
“I find that the union’s representation was arbitrary because it demonstrates blatant and reckless disregard for the applicant’s interests,” Nicolas stated.
The grievance started when IBEW 993 member Karly Evans, an industrial electrician, took her concerns to the union against Western Pacific Enterprise on Feb. 12, 2025, and wanted a severance deal.
“The grievance alleges that the employer engaged in discriminatory treatment, including sexual harassment, and failed to provide safe working conditions. The grievance also alleges that the employer forced the applicant to use her personal device at work, which resulted in her personal images being uploaded onto an employer laptop and Google account,” the decision rendered outlines.
Evans wanted a severance package, an apology from the employer and “a change in culture at the project towards women and pregnant persons in general,” the decision stated.
The deal negotiated by the union was not what Evans sought.
The employer agreed to pay Evans $3,000 in damages and would issue an apology letter.
However, Evans had to agree to be put on a “do not hire list,” which would make her ineligible to any future dispatches to the employer’s sites.
The settlement was “without prejudice” and was binding and final on relating to the grievance.
There was a final term in the settlement agreement Evans agreed to release the employer from any statutory claims.
“By signing this agreement, the griever specifically agrees to release the employer from any manner of action or claim arising from the incidents leading to the grievance under any statute in British Columbia including, but not limited to, the Human Rights Code, Employment Standards Act, Labour Relations Code, Workers Compensation Act and Personal Information Protection Act,” the decision read.
Evans had told the union representative she would rather remove her grievance than sign off on such a settlement agreement as it would impact her ability to earn income and she wanted the settlement agreement revoked.
Instead the union exercised its right to go ahead with the settlement and signed off on behalf of Evans in March 2025. Evans did not sign the agreement.
Nicolas said in his decision he found Evans’ request to withdraw the grievance relevant and, “I find that the union was therefore required to provide a reasoned decision for choosing not to withdraw the grievance as requested by the applicant. The union’s submission does not address why it chose not to withdraw the grievance and instead proceed with the settlement agreement. I find this to be arbitrary representation contrary to section 12 of the code.”
The important issue, said Nicolas, was that when the union signed off on the agreement, Evans was placed on a “do not hire” list with the employer.
“I note that there was nothing before me to suggest that the applicant had been terminated by the employer and the union’s submission does not explain why it agreed to a ‘do not hire’ term in the settlement agreement. I find the union’s decision to enter into the settlement agreement instead of withdrawing the grievance, particularly without a compelling explanation for the ‘do not hire’ term, demonstrates a level of carelessness that rises to the level of blatant and reckless disregard for the applicant’s interests, specifically her interests in remaining employed,” Nicolas said.
Nicolas revoked the settlement agreement and returned the parties to work out a settlement with the help of a special investigations officer of the board. If a settlement couldn’t be reached he would adjudicate one.
Western Pacific did not file a submission to the board and did not respond to a request to comment on the story. Evans did not respond to an email request for comment.
IBEW 993 business manager James Bicknell, representing the union, refused comment.
“I don’t have anything to say – have a nice day,” he said.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed