Court Date Soon to be announced - Likely 1st week of April

SUPREME COURT LEGAL ACTION FILED

Tentative Agreement Ratification Vote

HEU members have filed a Notice of Application and a Notice of Civil Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding the November 17, 2025 Tentative Agreement ratification vote.

WHAT THE COURT ACTION SEEKS

INJUNCTION (NOTICE OF APPLICATION)

• Halt implementation of the Tentative Agreement
• Require full disclosure of official final voting results
• Compel Simply Voting Inc. to release all voting records

CIVIL CLAIM

• Investigate serious irregularities in the ratification vote
• Compel disclosure of all voting data and documentation
• Overturn the results if constitutional thresholds were not met
• Protect members’ democratic rights

We believe the “No” vote won and that the required ratification threshold was not properly achieved.

Attachment Includes:

January 7 – Demand to suspend ratification and disclose voting records
January 21 – Response from HEU legal counsel
February 13 – Notice of Civil Claim
March 6 – Notice of Application

Response to HEU Filing of March 17th: A Result That Changed Without Votes or Recount
HEU leadership confirmed in its response the number of locals voting YES was 107 on Dec 19th, and has not provided any evidence that South Delta was counted as a NO vote in that total. In fact, based on the math, South Delta would have been a YES within the 107. We seek disclosure of the original Dec 19th verified election results from Simply Voting Inc., specifically showing whether South Delta was recorded as a YES or NO vote.

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS (RE: PARAGRAPHS 16–22)

The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Defendant’s explanation for the change in reported ratification results—from 107 locals to 108 locals—is internally inconsistent, mathematically unsound, and unsupported by evidence.

1. No Genuine Change in Outcome from “Interpretation” of Majority
The Defendant asserts that the change resulted from an interpretation of “simple majority” vs. “50% + 1” applied to the South Delta vote (70 YES / 69 NO).

With 139 ballots cast:
• 50% = 69.5 → majority requires 70
• South Delta recorded 70 YES

Accordingly, South Delta constitutes a majority under both interpretations. The distinction is mathematically irrelevant and could not have altered the classification. The Defendant’s justification fails on its face.

2. The Change from 107 to 108 Cannot Be Explained by South Delta
• Initial result: 107 of 161 locals in favour
• Revised result: 108 of 161 locals in favour

Since South Delta would necessarily count as YES under either standard, it cannot explain the increase.

Either:
• South Delta was incorrectly excluded initially; or
• Another local’s classification changed

No explanation has been provided.

3. Absence of Transparency and Missing Instructions
The Defendant confirms:
• No recount occurred;
• No additional voting took place

Yet the number of YES locals increased.

No disclosure has been made regarding:
• Instructions to Simply Voting Inc. (Dec 19, 2025 – Jan 5, 2026)
• Any post-certification adjustments
• The mechanism behind the increase

The absence of any audit trail raises serious concerns.

4. Improper Alteration of Final Results
The Defendant acknowledges:
• Results were reported Dec 19, 2025
• Results were later revised

Final certified results cannot be altered without a recount, re-vote, or transparent correction process supported by evidence. None has been demonstrated.

5. The Only Reasonable Inference
Given that:
• The South Delta outcome is unaffected by interpretation
• No recount or additional voting occurred
• The number of YES locals increased
• No explanation or documentation exists

The Plaintiffs submit the change from 107 to 108 was not a legitimate recalculation, but an improper post hoc adjustment to meet the required threshold of 108 locals.

6. Legal Consequence
The Defendant has failed to provide a credible or coherent explanation. Therefore:
• The Court cannot rely on the revised 108
• The only verifiable result is 107
• The ratification threshold was not met

7. Relief
On this basis alone, the ratification process is invalid and should be set aside.

Conclusion: The Defendant asks this Court to accept a result that changed without any change in votes, any recount, or any mathematical basis—and that cannot ground a valid ratification

Website:
www.heubc.ca

Facebook Group:
HEUBC
https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1CdgxwLq7P/

SUPPORT THE LEGAL ACTION

Contribute to the GoFundMe campaign:

https://gofund.me/ad9e2d645

Every contribution helps protect member democracy.

Download PDF

HEU Spending Over Half Its Budget on Staff

HEU expects $75.65 million in revenue, mostly from member dues, while planned spending totals $82.14 million, meaning HEU is budgeting for a deficit even after drawing millions from reserve funds.But the biggest issue isn’t just the deficit. It’s where the money is going.

Over Half the Budget to Staff Salaries at $72.04 an hour for Staff as of April 1st

According to the budget, $40.83 million is allocated to staff salaries and benefits, making it by far the largest single expense in the organization. That means more than half of HEU’s total spending goes to staff compensation, before a single dollar is spent on direct member support, workplace advocacy, or bargaining costs.For a union funded largely by dues taken directly from members’ paycheques, that should concern every HEU member.

How That Compares to Typical Payroll Ratios

Most organizations track a payroll-to-revenue ratio to understand how much of their income is consumed by staff costs.Typical benchmarks are:

20–30% of revenue spent on salaries in many sectors.
30–50% even in labour‑intensive service organizations.

By contrast, HEU is spending well over 50% of its budget on staff compensation alone. That places HEU on the high end of staffing cost intensity, especially for a member‑funded organization that is not producing commercial revenue but providing representation and advocacy.

Payroll ratio context

Type of organization Typical payroll-to-revenue ratio. HEU situation (2026)Many private/non-profit organizations 20–30%Labour‑intensive service organizations 30–50%HEU (staff salaries and benefits only)Over 50% of total spending. Over 50%This raises a basic question: is a dues‑funded union structurally over‑invested in internal staff compared to what members themselves would consider reasonable?

Around 300 Staff, High Average Compensation

HEU reportedly employs roughly 300 staff. With $40.83 million in salary and benefit costs, that works out to average compensation of roughly $130,000+ per staff member annually when benefits and pensions are included.No one disputes that union work is demanding and that staff deserve fair wages and benefits. But members are entitled to ask whether the level of service, communication, and representation they receive matches this level of spending.

Are grievances handled quickly and effectively?
Are worksites regularly visited and supported?
Are members seeing clear, tangible gains from bargaining and advocacy that reflect this level of internal cost?

If the answer in workplaces across B.C. is “not really,” then the budget is telling a story that members can no longer ignore.

Leadership Pay

At the same time, publicly reported compensation shows that senior HEU leaders — including President Barb Nederpel, Secretary‑Business Manager Lynn Bueckert, and Financial Secretary Betty Valenzuela — each receive total compensation exceeding $250,000 annually. These roles have also seen significant percentage increases 28% in recent years, at the same time members are told to temper expectations at the bargaining table.Most members will now understand why a long‑time insider like Betty Valenzuela, at age 77, may be finding it difficult to retire even with multiple pensions. It seems she never got the memo that we come with nothing and we leave with nothing.When top union leaders are earning compensation packages that rival or surpass health‑sector executives, it becomes harder to claim that “we’re all in this together.” Members are justified in asking whether there is a gap between the leadership’s financial reality and that of frontline health care workers struggling with rising costs and chronic short staffing.

Questions Members Should Be Asking

Union dues are supposed to support members: bargaining, representation, workplace advocacy, and defending workers’ rights.When more than half the budget is consumed by internal staffing costs and leadership compensation, while the union is still planning to run a deficit, members have every right to demand answers:

Why is such a large share of dues going toward union staff rather than directly improving member support and workplace power?
Why is the union running a deficit while staffing and leadership costs remain so high?
Who approved these spending priorities, and how transparently were they disclosed to members?
Is the current structure delivering real value to frontline health care workers, or has the union become too focused on sustaining its own internal bureaucracy?

HEU members deserve full transparency and accountability for how their dues are spent. Because ultimately, every dollar in that budget comes directly from the paycheques of health care workers across British Columbia — not from government, not from employers, and not from some abstract “union fund,” but from real people doing hard work on the front lines.

The HEU staff contract is up in 2027, and I believe it should be settled at 0–0–0 for three years.

Download PDF

Mystery Solved: Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert Salaries

Over $250,000 a year plus Platinum Benefits

A current HEU Provincial Executive member provided this information, even though that member was elected on Team Barb. As the saying goes, keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

Lynn Bueckert, while serving as Assistant Secretary–Business Manager, assumed the Secretary–Business Manager role on March 22, 2024, following the departure of Meena Brisard.

Meena was set to receive a 28% raise, which by all accounts she deserved — not only because she did the job well, but because she stood up and fought for members. Meena was in her position for almost three years, was a great person, and if she were still here, I firmly believe the chance of this tentative agreement being put to a vote would have been zero.

Lynn Bueckert is no Meena Brisard — nowhere close, in my first-hand experience. In 2024, over a four-month period, I sent Lynn 16 emails, not demanding but begging for a meeting regarding my termination grievance. Lynn did not respond, nor did she even acknowledge a single one of them. As head of servicing, this wasn’t just poor representation — it was no representation at all.

Because of that, I filed a Section 12 complaint. In my view, I didn’t even need to make a complex case: Lynn wasn’t providing bad representation — she provided none.

You may now understand why I believe Barb needed help from Labour Minister Whiteside to replace my adjudicator at the Labour Board with an NDP HACK named Andres Barker, an Eby appointment from 2018.

So Lynn was automatically given a 28% raise, without a Provincial Executive vote and without a new contract being presented to or approved by the PE. That alone raises serious questions about process and accountability.

Then Barb, relying on the HEU staff contract, received a $1.00 per hour increase plus 5.5% and 4.5%, all at once. After that, Barb hired a professional consultant — and HEU paid for it — to produce a report making the case for why Barb should receive the same 28% raise as Lynn Bueckert.

In other words, members’ money was used to justify executive compensation increases that were neither transparent nor clearly approved through normal governance channels.

What Barb Nederpel has truly mastered is the art of hiring HEU-paid consultants to generate reports that conveniently justify her behaviour — whether it aligns with the Constitution or not. The only body meant to hold her accountable is the Provincial Executive, yet they appear carefully nurtured and periodically thrown a bone (a perk) just often enough to keep them obedient and silent instead of barking.

I can’t confirm specific salary figures for Betty Valenzuela, but when someone is writing the cheques and knows exactly where the bodies are buried, it’s easy to see how “equal pay” and “equal rights” end up reserved for those in positions of privilege.

This is what Barb and Betty should be making under existing HEU policy:

President & Financial Secretary:
• $85.16 per hour (5% above Coordinators)
• Housing allowance: $1,850 per month, tax-free ($22,200 per year)

The reason Barb refuses to release the actual numbers and instead tells members to “look it up in the STAFF CBA” is, in my view/source, because the three highest-paid positions are operating outside HEU policy, not within it.

Conclusion:
The only way to confirm what they are actually earning is simple and straightforward:
they should release their HEU T4s for the last three years.

Members deserve transparency. Here’s a simple motion you can bring to your next local meeting to request it.

I’m asking members to consider bringing the motion below to your next local meeting. The goal is straightforward: to request clear and transparent disclosure from the Provincial Executive regarding the actual salaries and compensation paid to HEU executive officers.

Many members have questions, and the best way to address rumours or uncertainty is through formal transparency. A motion passed by a Local carries much more weight than an individual inquiry and ensures the Provincial Executive understands that members expect clear answers.If possible, please read the motion below word for word at your next meeting and request that your Local Secretary send the attached letter or email to the Provincial Executive.

Motion for Members to Read at Their Local Meeting

Whereas union members have a right to transparency and accountability regarding how their union dues are spent;Whereas questions and concerns have been raised by members regarding the salary and full compensation paid to HEU executive officers;Whereas providing clear and factual information helps ensure that rumours and speculation are replaced with accurate information;

Therefore be it resolved that this Local formally request that the Local Secretary send a letter or email to the HEU Provincial Executive requesting full disclosure of the actual salaries and compensation paid to HEU executive officers for the years 2023, 2024, and 2025.

Be it further resolved that the request include disclosure of the full compensation paid to the following positions:• Barb Nederpel, President
• Lynn Bueckert, Secretary-Business Manager
• Betty Valenzuela, Financial Secretary

Be it further resolved that this request be sent using the attached template letter and that the Provincial Executive be asked to provide a clear written response to our Local within a reasonable timeframe.

Template Letter / Email to the Provincial Executive

Subject: Immediate Clarification Required: Executive Compensation Transparency

Dear Provincial Executive,

There have been rumours that Barb Nederpel hired a consultant who suggested Barb be paid at a higher level than what is listed in the CBA, where she and Betty Valenzuela are supposed to be making 10% more than the Coordinator. I believe even the PE members are not sure what the executive salary and compensation is for the President and Financial Secretary.

To ensure accuracy and accountability, our Local is requesting a comprehensive disclosure of the total salary and full compensation actually paid to the following HEU leadership members for each of the following years: 2023, 2024, and 2025:

Barb Nederpel, President
Lynn Bueckert, Secretary-Business Manager
Betty Valenzuela, Financial Secretary

For each individual and for each year listed, this disclosure must include the actual amounts paid, not policy references, formulas, or links to where this information may be found. Specifically, the disclosure must include:• Base salary paid
• Bonuses paid
• Allowances paid (including but not limited to clothing or expense allowances)
• Benefits paid or accrued
• Any other forms of financial or non-financial compensation paid, accrued, or deferred

Members have a fundamental right to know how their dues are being spent, particularly with respect to executive compensation. If managers, directors, and executives within the Health Authorities are subject to full public salary disclosure, there is no justification for withholding equivalent information from union members regarding the leadership of their own union.If HEU refuses to provide the requested information, we formally request identification of the specific article(s) of the HEU Constitution or the exact HEU policy that explicitly prohibits members from receiving this information.

General references or directions to search documents will not be sufficient. Every member who corresponds with the Provincial Executive is entitled to a clear and direct response.We expect a clear and direct response addressing these concerns and full disclosure of the actual compensation paid as outlined above, including confirmation as to whether Betty Valenzuela received any similar increases during the same period.We anticipate a response no later than [insert date].

In solidarity,
[Name]
[Local Number]

Shining a Light on HEU’s Double Standards

Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert gave themselves a 28% raise before HEU bargaining started, meaning they knew something. Seems like these two are excellent at bargaining—just not for the members, only for themselves.

HEU leadership exempted themselves and all 250 staff members from the Public Health Orders. So those who criticize the members for not getting vaccinated need to ask the HEU leadership: why the hypocrisy? This is not hearsay but factual.

The Public Health Orders were used by the public sector unions, especially HEU, to enrich themselves and had nothing to do with the core issue, which was safety. The flush of cash from the PHOs has allowed Barb Nederpel to take corruption to the next level and buy loyalty by handing out perks to certain members of the PE and locals, thus consolidating power.

HEU Leadership gave this to the over 250 HEU staff last year:

April 1, 2024: $1.00/hour + 6.75% (retroactive)
April 1, 2025: 4.25%
April 1, 2026: 3.00%

(Notice it’s a 3-year deal and the 1st year is stacked with the highest figure so the compounding is even greater in the remaining years. The 3rd year is actually way more than just 3% because the 3% is based on the over 10% already received.)Now Barb and Lynn want the members locked in for 4 years at 3% a year and found no reason to fight for even an extra one percent in the first year (no creative bone in their bodies to help the membership).

SOME OF THE HEU STAFF BENEFITS (FOR OVER 250 HEU STAFF AND LEADERSHIP)
• Clothing Allowance: $1,110 (as of Jan 2021, increasing with CPI)
• Dental: 100% for basic services; 70% extended (including implants)
• Extended Health: $600 vision; $3,000 hearing aids; unlimited medical coverage
• Group Life Insurance: $125,000 fully paid
• Early Retirement Fund: 1% of payroll to retire early without vacation/CTO
• Enhanced Gender Affirmation: $10,000
• Fertility Drugs: $3,000 lifetime
• Education & Career Development: full support and leave
• Plus per diems, overtime, travel, and more

Staff reps work 50% from home but get a full vehicle allowance which includes all gas and insurance (for personal and business use), $1,000 winter tires every 3 years, $55 a month for maintenance (no receipt required), and yes, the vehicle allowance is valid even when the staff reps are away on vacation, sick, or on leave.

Every HEU staff member gets $1,100 a year in clothing allowance which increases based on the consumer price index, but there is no need to provide the members with Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA).

I am showing the hypocrisy of this union leadership and staff reps, where many came from our ranks to earn the executive lifestyles of the few, yet provide very little or in many cases bad-faith representation. You would think they would be grateful where every member counts, but perhaps we need to remind them what block that Jenny came from.

Corruption in HEU — Backed by the NDP

In a nutshell, this is what every member needs to see

WAGES AT THE TOP

Director: $73.74/hour
Co-Coordinator: $81.11/hour (10% above Directors)
President & Financial Secretary: $85.16/hour (5% above Coordinators)
- That’s what Barb Nederpel and Betty Valenzuela are making.
Housing: $1,850/month tax-free ($22,000/year)

PERKS ON TOP OF BASE WAGES (FOR OVER 250 HEU STAFF AND LEADERSHIP)

Clothing Allowance: $1,110 (as of Jan 2021, increasing with CPI)
Dental: 100% for basic services; 70% extended (including implants)
Extended Health: $600 vision; $3,000 hearing aids; unlimited medical coverage
Group Life Insurance: $125,000 fully paid
Early Retirement Fund: 1% of payroll to retire early without vacation/CTO
Enhanced Gender Affirmation: $10,000
Fertility Drugs: $3,000 lifetime
Education & Career Development: full support and leave
Plus per diems, overtime, travel, and more

FUTURE RAISES ALREADY LOCKED IN (250 HEU STAFF)

April 1, 2024: $1.00/hour + 6.75% (retroactive)
April 1, 2025: 4.25%
April 1, 2026: 3.00%

MEANWHILE…

Staff reps: $70.30/hour, work 50% from home, and receive a full vehicle allowance for both business and personal use.
Coordinators like Chris Dorais: $81.11/hour with only a two-year trades program.
His spouse Ruby: $70.30/hour as a staff rep after just a six-month Pharmacy Tech course.
- Together, their household earns $151.40/hour.

THE LOWEST PAID JOB OF 250 EMPLOYEES (HEU STAFF, NOT DUES-PAYING MEMBERS)

Mailroom Assistant at Head Office: $36.96/hour (~$70,000 annually).

That’s proof the system is rigged.

THE REAL PROBLEM

Let’s be clear: I am not against staff or leadership earning good wages — but only if they provide proper representation. In my case, and in the case of many others, that has not — and still does not — happen.HEU leadership represents the employer at the bargaining table against its own staff.
That is not only unethical, it’s a blatant conflict of interest.Their wages and benefits are tied to what staff receive.

In other words, they are bargaining against themselves.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

HEU - Lending Money to Community Savings Credit Union

We Need Answers About Executive Conflict of Interest

The Provincial Executive of the Hospital Employees’ Union approved a loan to Community Savings Credit Union, where:

HEU President Barb Nederpel and
Secretary-Business Manager Lynn Bueckert

both serve as paid directors, receiving compensation for attending meetings plus other possible financial benefits.

Why This Looks Like a Conflict of Interest

How is this not a conflict of interest, considering:

Barb and Lynn make $250,000+ in salary and compensation at HEU,
while approving a loan to a credit union that pays them personally?

Here’s What We Know

HEU leadership voted to approve a loan from HEU to Community Savings Credit Union?
Barb and Lynn are paid as Community Savings directors ($395–$505 per meeting, plus possible shares and other considerations).
They’re using union money to fund an organization that pays them directly.
HEU leadership also uses and encourages locals to use Community Savings Credit Union.

Questions Every Member Should Be Asking

Did they disclose their financial interests before voting?
Did they recuse themselves from this decision?
How much of our union money is involved?
What other financial relationships exist that we don’t know about?

Why This Matters for Members

Our union dues may be funding their personal financial gain.
Executives are supposed to act solely in members’ interests, not their own.
We deserve transparency about how our money is being used.
Union resources should go toward member representation, not executive side businesses.

What We Need

Full disclosure of the loan amount and terms.
An independent investigation of this conflict.
Clear policies to prevent future conflicts of interest.
Accountability from executives who are supposed to work for us.

Final Point

When our executives profit from both sides of a transaction using union money, that’s not representation — that’s self-dealing.We pay union dues expecting our leaders to fight for us, not to use our resources for their personal benefit.I would file a complaint with the ethics commissioner. I personally filed a complaint with the BC Financial Services Authority.

Message to All HEU Members

The Hospital Employees’ Union (HEU) does not exist today to represent its members. It exists to protect itself, its leadership, and its political ties. For (most) of those at the top, it’s not about accountability — it’s about careers, perks, and “elite” incomes without the skills, education, or professional ethics to back them up.

The few who speak out are punished or ignored. The many who stay silent are compliant, waiting to reap the benefits of someone else’s fight. That silence is why the leadership keeps getting away with it. There’s no roar left, only whispers — and that’s exactly how they like it.

Who Does HEU Serve?

The truth is hard but clear: HEU leadership has aligned itself with the NDP government and the BC Labour Board to shield itself from its own members.

You cannot serve two masters. So whose interests does HEU leadership really serve — the members, or themselves and the government?

HEU Leadership is the NDP Government:

Barb Nederpel – failed NDP candidate in 2017 and sat on the BC NDP Provincial Executive in 2022 (and may still be there).
Bal Sandhu – member of the HEU Provincial Executive, married to NDP MLA Harwinder Sandhu.
Jennifer Whiteside – current Labour Minister, formerly HEU Secretary-Business Manager before being elected.
Jessie Sunner – Minister of Post-Secondary Education, formerly a lawyer in HEU’s legal department.
HEU gives 100% of its Political Action Fund — roughly $375,000 every two years — exclusively to the NDP.

How is that not a profound conflict of interest?

Are there other pro-labour candidates outside the NDP who could represent working people? And what about the Green Party — are they anti-labour?

The revolving door is undeniable. HEU leadership and the NDP are not separate — they are one and the same.

The Labour Board: A Rigged System

HEU’s protection doesn’t stop with politics. The BC Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) — the only place members can file complaints — has become a shield for unions, not a safeguard for workers.

Fewer than 3% of Section 12 complaints filed by union members succeed. This staggering failure rate exposes a system structurally biased in favour of the very unions it is meant to regulate.
Nearly every BCLRB vice-chair and adjudicator has a direct union background. Many will seek future employment from those same unions. This is a textbook conflict of interest.

The “Family Firm” in Action:

Jonathan Hanvelt, Vice-Chair – 14 years at a union-side labour law firm; frequent work for the Canadian Labour Congress, Lancaster House, and the VDLC.
René-John Nicolas, Vice-Chair – formerly lawyer for the BCGEU.
Andres Barker, Vice-Chair – articled at the BCGEU Legal Department.
Gurleen Sahota, Vice-Chair – represented the Health Sciences Association of BC.
Stephanie Ann Drake, Vice-Chair – came from Victory Square Law Office LLP, a firm notorious for union-side advocacy.
Robyn Trask, Vice-Chair – served as General Counsel to the BCTF.

With this level of entrenchment, impartiality is a farce. It’s no wonder members terminated for refusing to comply with PHO mandates received no protection — the fix was already in.

This is why unions whisper among themselves and call the Labour Board “the family firm.” They don’t fear it. In many ways, they own it.

The Bottom Line

HEU leadership is not your voice. It is not your shield. It has become a political arm of the NDP, reinforced by a compromised Labour Board that exists to protect unions from their own members.

The question every HEU member must now ask is simple: Whose interests are being protected — yours, or theirs?

A Path Forward

For HEU to reclaim its purpose as a true member-driven organization, we need:

Genuine transparency in all financial and political decisions
Democratic reform that gives members meaningful input on major decisions
Independent oversight mechanisms that aren’t compromised by political connections
Clear separation between union leadership and partisan politics

The strength of any union lies in its ability to represent its members without fear or favor. When that mission becomes secondary to political alliances or institutional self-preservation, the very purpose of collective representation is undermined.

As members who fund this organization through our dues, we deserve leadership that puts our interests first — always and without exception.

Exempted themselves from Public HeaLth Orders

HEU’s Leadership and 244 Staff were Exempt from Dr. Henry’s PUbliC Health orders

HEU President Barb Nederpel told an unvaccinated member: “The HEU policy is to support the immunization of all healthcare workers.” Yet she and the Provincial Executive—who are themselves healthcare workers—excluded themselves and all 244 staff members from the Public Health Orders. Meanwhile, 60,000 members were forced to either get vaccinated or face termination.HEU never took a single grievance to full arbitration.

HEU never advocated for lifting the PHOs, even when every other province had already done so. BC remained under PHOs 28 months longer than the rest of Canada, with PEI being the second last to lift theirs in March 2022.During this period, HEU prioritized advocacy for foreign healthcare workers while long-term members, who built the union, were being terminated. Member funds were used for a media campaign supporting foreign workers, but not a single campaign was launched to fight the PHOs.

HEU spent $470,401 on advertising to get the NDP elected—the same government responsible for the termination of HEU members.

HEU also conspired with other public sector unions and their NDP allies to prolong the PHOs, saving tens of millions for themselves while circulating money within their political circle. If the BC Liberals used duffel bags in casinos, the NDP used the blood of workers to achieve the same ends.I am unsure about BCNU and HSA, but this information has been confirmed by both former and current members of the HEU Provincial Executive.

This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The Not-So-HEU Ethical Commissioner’s Convenient Exit

Ritu Mahil is now appointed Vice-Chair at LRB

It seems Ritu Mahil, HEU Ethics Commissioner, left her position after only 10 months of her 2-year contract. Ritu dragged on the investigation into Barb Nederpel – President, Bill McMullan – 1st Vice-President, Talitha Dekker – 2nd Vice-President, Bonnie Hammermeister – RVP Fraser Region, and other members of the Provincial Executive.
During the October 2024 HEU Convention, these individuals used a group chat to manipulate the election in real time and secure their own positions. The attached group texts—believed to have been created by Barb Nederpel herself—prove this.
Ritu Mahil, who was hired by the same individuals she was later asked to investigate, previously worked at an NDP-dominated law firm where Rachel Notley, former Premier of Alberta, also works.

That Ritu cleared all of them of wrongdoing is beyond imagination. I had already named her the Not-So-Ethical HEU Commissioner.

At the end of the day, there weren’t enough showers she could take to wipe away the yuck—or cleanse the soul—for doing the dirty work of HEU leadership.
The evidence is clear in the attached texts:

Real-time vote manipulation: “President Barb Nederpel: Everyone must vote Jovito!” and “President Barb Nederpel: I tried to tell people to switch.” This happened during a live tie-breaker.
Coordinated voting strategy: “We need to organize our team this round. Who do we vote for? All agree Ranjit and then send texts out to the group.”
Awareness of wrongdoing: “Madame Pres is it allowed to tell somebody to vote for a certain candidate here while voting? Yesssssss.” Campaigning in the voting hall is strictly prohibited.
Identity-politics manipulation: “Okay, for people who are messaging who to vote for, please let me know ethnic diversity.” Diversity was used as a political tool, not genuine equity.
Acknowledgment of improper influence: “I’m with the other commenter about not appropriate for either Barb or Louella to interfere or influence regional elections due to their position.”

The chats also reveal racism and dangerous attitudes. Leadership used diversity as a checkbox for votes while ignoring real concerns about racism. In one exchange, Bill McMullan used foul language: “No to Maria. Ever.” Certi replied, “Maria got in already.” Bill responded, “F** me.”* Certi then added, “The racial game is up front.” Bill answered, “Of course it is.” To which Certi said, “I’m Filipino but I don’t believe in that shit.” This exchange involved Jovito Espinoza (Certi) – Disabilities DVP.
The Ethics Commissioner overseeing Vancouver City Council found that Ken Sim and his party breached ethics guidelines by using a group chat for city business. What happened at HEU was worse. Their group chat wasn’t just for back-channeling—it was used to tamper with elections while members were voting. That isn’t just unethical; it’s fraud.
Read the texts for yourself under the Election Tampering tab—don’t just take my word for it. The proof is in their own words: tampering, racism, and misconduct in the middle of voting. And yet, despite all this, Ritu Mahil signed off on a clean slate for the very people who appointed her.
HEU has not one but six equity groups, which have proven themselves to be useless when they can’t even educate the leadership.

HEU Membership Feedback

"I received a response through the website from a shop steward at a care home in Langley. She told me the members she represents have given up on HEU. Their staff rep lives in Harrison Hot Springs, is impossible to get a hold of, and insists on emails instead of phone calls. Every issue gets brushed off with the same line: “The employer has the right to manage."

Her excuse? She has too many job sites to cover."

"We have the same problem at RJH Victoria. I went to the last meeting via zoom and again they can't meet quorum Why? Because no one has Any Faith in our Union. They are Done with never getting any help. There's talk of walking away from the Union and joining another (if that's possible?) it's not good in Victoria and getting worse. "

SOLUTION:

It's time HEU stops wasting money on political action and starts using those resources to actually serve its members.

Group Objective

The objective of this group is to demand transparency and accountability from HEU leadership to the members who pay union dues. This group exists to provide a voice for all members—whether they are heterosexual white males, minorities, transgender, disabled, or any other group—and to focus on the membership as a whole, not select interests.

This group is not about politics. It is about representation and the well-being of every dues-paying member. It is time to remove political agendas and political action from the union’s priorities and return HEU to its core purpose: representing its members.

Since its inception, HEU has played an important role as a social justice union. However, in recent years, the union has shifted away from serving members and toward serving itself—its leadership and staff. The real work of protecting minorities and underrepresented members is now embedded in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and employer policies, where it belongs.

Identity politics and political action are being used by union leadership to divide members and distract from the real issue: representation. Representation is the only thing dues-paying members are asking for, and it is the mandate of this group to demand it.

This group stands for unity, accountability, transparency, and equal representation for all HEU members—without exception.

Advocating for Transparency & Accountability