Holding Unions Accountable: Exposing Ultra Vires Actions and Breaches of Member Trust

 HEU has 244 staff members, and these numbers don’t include the Provincial Executive, which I added up to be 27 on HEU.ORG.How many do you think makeover $75,000 or more in compensation? What we do know is they ALL get $1,110 a year for clothing allowance. That is 244 + 27 = 271 x 1,110 = $300,810 of member funds increasing every year based on CPI.These are the elite people HEU’s leadership prioritizes, while employing a massive legal department backed by NDP friends in government.

First of all, HEU supported Public Health Orders and allowed them to stay in place 28 months after the second-last province lifted them in March 2022. HEU has watched its members get terminated by their NDP friends in government. Why didn’t HEU take a single grievance to arbitration?

The answer is obvious: those public health orders were for the members—but not for the 244 staff members who did not have to follow the same public health orders. HEU staff were not required to vaccinate.That makes it clear—members were treated like cattle, expected to provide milk and grade-A steak for HEU leadership and staff. How many HEU staff were terminated for failing to comply with these PHOs? Zero.So for those who say the members who did not vaccinate, “They deserved it,” think twice—this entire scenario was built on deception.

And then there are those who argue that the NDP deserves every penny HEU provides. The BC Liberals rolled back wages by 15% in 2004. Since then, has the NDP restored those wages since they have been the majority since 2017?Answer: No.

Since 2004, HEU has provided at least $200,000 a year—likely much more—in political action contributions. In the last election, HEU spent $470,401 just on advertising for the NDP—so let's see how bargaining goes this year. Who has benefited? Not HEU members.

What exclusive benefits has HEU received from the NDP government that other unions haven’t, despite contributing more than all other unions combined?"The only people profiting from our contributions are Barb Nederpel, HEU staff, and of course, the NDP. 

To: [Employer Name]
CC: Hospital Employees’ Union (HEU) From: [Your Name]  [Your Position]

Background On July 29, 2024, the Facilities Bargaining Association (FBA) and the Health Employers Association of British Columbia (HEABC) signed a Letter of Understanding (LOU) titled Cessation of Provincial Health Officer Orders Respecting Healthcare Worker Vaccination.

This LOU drastically impacts the employment status, seniority, and financial compensation of terminated employees. However, it was negotiated and implemented without membership consultation or ratification, in direct violation of both the HEU Constitution and the Collective Agreement.

HEU has acted in bad faith by forcing terminated members to apply externally for their own jobs despite the union still being actively engaged in the grievance/arbitration process with the assigned arbitrator. This deliberate abandonment of fiduciary duty constitutes a serious breach of BC labour law, violating Section 12 of the Labour Relations Code and making the union liable for failing to represent members fairly, equally, and in good faith. By requiring wrongfully terminated members to apply as external applicants, HEU has effectively disowned its legal and ethical obligation to ensure full reinstatement with all rights, benefits, and wages intact, as mandated under the Collective Agreement.

Violations of the HEU Constitution & Collective Agreement:

1. Violation of the Ratification Process – HEU Acted Without Membership Approval.

• HEU Constitution, Article 11, Section H: Requires that all eligible members vote on proposed settlement terms before ratification.
• HEU Constitution, Article 11, Section E: Requires the Bargaining Committee to obtain Provincial Executive approval before recommending any settlement terms.
• HEU Constitution, Article 11, Section D: Mandates that members be kept informed during negotiations. 

By implementing the LOU without a ratification vote, HEU and FBA violated their own constitution and bargaining process, rendering the LOU’s implementation illegitimate. 

2. Bad Faith Representation – Forcing Terminated Members to Apply Externally

• HEU knowingly forced terminated members to reapply externally for their own jobs, violating its legal duty to represent all members fairly.
• Section 12 of the BC Labour Relations Code explicitly prohibits unions from acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
• HEU abandoned its fiduciary duty by failing to protect members' rights under:
• Article 9.07 of the Collective Agreement (Reinstatement of Employees Without Loss of Pay).
• Article 11.08 of the Collective Agreement (Reinstatement With Full Back Pay and Benefits).

By treating wrongfully terminated members as external applicants, HEU has illegally stripped members of their contractual rights, leaving them in a worse position than if they had been properly represented.

3. Failure to Enforce the Collective Agreement – Reinstatement & Back Pay

• The LOU unlawfully denies automatic reinstatement and full financial compensation, violating:
• Article 9.07 – Employees dismissed without just cause must be reinstated with all rights, benefits, and pay restored.
• Article 11.08 – Mandates full back pay and benefits for employees wrongfully terminated.
• HEU’s failure to enforce these provisions constitutes gross negligence and breach of duty under the BC Labour Relations Code.

Relief Sought

1. Rescind the LOU unless ratified by a full membership vote, as required under Article 11, Section H of the HEU Constitution.
2. Automatically reinstate all affected employees into their original positions, restoring all seniority, benefits, and pay, without requiring them to reapply externally.
3. Provide full retroactive compensation for all lost wages and benefits, per Articles 9.07 and 11.08.
4. A formal acknowledgment from HEU admitting its failure to represent members fairly and a binding commitment that future agreements affecting employment rights will require proper ratification.
5. Immediate arbitration if the employer and union fail to address these violations within a reasonable timeframe.
6. I am to be made whole. This means full financial restitution for all losses suffered due to wrongful termination, ensuring my employment status, seniority, benefits, pension contributions, and career trajectory are restored as if I had never been terminated.

Jessie Bains <bainsj@gmail.com>

 to info. Privacy

To: Freedom of Information Office,

Interior Health Authority Pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), I formally request the disclosure of the COVID-19 vaccination status of Barb Nederpel, President of the Hospital Employees’ Union (HEU), who remains an employee of Interior Health Authority (IHA) in the event she is not re-elected.

Specifically, I am seeking confirmation as to whether Barb Nederpel provided proof of vaccination by the mandatory deadline set for all IHA employees, which I understand to have been October 2021.

Additionally, I request the vaccination status of HEU Elected Officers, HEU staff representatives assigned to IHA, as well as a review of whether any of these individuals, if unvaccinated, entered acute care sites within IHA facilities before vaccine mandates were lifted in July 2024.

I expect IHA to attempt to deny this request on privacy grounds. However, I challenge this on the basis that:

1. IHA terminated employees who refused to disclose their vaccination status, demonstrating that an employee’s vaccination status was not protected from scrutiny when used as grounds for dismissal. If unvaccinated employees were not entitled to privacy, then neither should elected HEU officials or staff representatives who remained employed by IHA while others lost their jobs.
2. The vaccination status of Barb Nederpel and HEU staff is of direct concern to all HEU members, as HEU leadership actively exempted themselves and 244 HEU employees from compliance with the very Public Health Orders that applied to all frontline healthcare workers. This raises serious questions about fairness, accountability, and preferential treatment.
3. Many HEU representatives retain employment within IHA and other health authorities despite their leadership’s refusal to adhere to the same vaccination mandates imposed on union members. IHA has an obligation to investigate whether unvaccinated HEU representatives accessed acute care sites before the mandates were lifted, potentially violating public health policies.
   

Given the public interest, potential inequity, and health implications surrounding this issue, IHA has a duty to respond transparently. I expect a full and complete response in accordance with the timelines mandated under FIPPA. If this request is denied, I will escalate the matter accordingly.

Please confirm receipt of this request and provide an expected timeline for disclosure.

Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

The Chief Medical Officers in every province reviewed the scientific evidence on vaccine effectiveness and, by early 2022, concluded that vaccines did not prevent the spread of the virus. As a result, they decided to lift vaccine mandates. PEI was the second-to-last province in March 2022 to do so based on science, while BC delayed lifting its mandates until July 2024. Instead of following the science, BC used the politics of COVID to divide British Columbians.

Meanwhile, HEU stood by in silence and is now blaming Ottawa for ending the use of immigrant health workers. The union’s leadership continues to exploit minorities and immigrants for its own political purposes.

There is no need to rehash this debate, as the Teamsters took this issue to arbitration and won in December 2023, presenting medical evidence to support their case. This week, Purolator’s appeal of that decision was dismissed.

Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. May 6-7, 2024Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. January 30, 2025

[189] Purolator’s submission that it was deeply prejudiced in not knowing the case it had to meet, and was denied the opportunity to present evidence and make submissions on whether there was a legal basis for the Attestation Terminations, is also not persuasive. Purolator was aware of Local 31’s position as early as December 16, 2022.

The Glass Proceedings proceeded intermittently until they concluded in September 2023. As noted by Local 31, Purolator did not request any adjournments to consider its position or prepare to deal with the issue of the Attestation Terminations. That the Arbitrator reserved his decision on Purolator’s objection to his jurisdiction over the Attestation Terminations did not deprive it of the ability to further address the issue, any more than the Arbitrator’s reserving on the res judicata issue prevented it from later presenting evidence and making submissions on that issue.

I find that Purolator knew the case it had to meet.[190] As I have found that there was no procedural unfairness to Purolator, I do not need to determine whether the correctness standard of review would have applied to procedural aspects associated with the Attestation Terminations.

[191] My role in this judicial review is to consider the Decision in light of its underlying rationale in order to ensure that it as a whole is transparent, intelligible and justified. I must focus on the Decision, including the justification offered for it, and not on the conclusion I would have reached in the Arbitrator’s place. I have done so.

I find the Decision is transparent, intelligible and justified, and thus reasonable.[192] The petition is dismissed.[193] Local 31 is entitled to its costs.See attached. 

I encourage members to file BC Human Rights complaints not just against their employer but also against their union.Unions have a legal responsibility to uphold members' human rights, yet they are shifting the burden onto members by demanding legal justifications—something that should be the union’s job, using its own legal department. Instead of protecting members, unions are weaponizing their legal resources against the very people whose wages fund them. This is a betrayal of their duty to represent and advocate for workers.

By filing these complaints, members create additional opportunities for compensation and keep their grievances alive for at least another two years, even when unions attempt to shut them down. This is a strategy I learned from the master of delay tactics herself—our beloved President, Barb Nederpel.

VIHA - Legal Response to a MEMBER Complaint Filed with BC Human Rights Commission. (We take our marching orders from public health—so don’t blame us. Your union supports us, not you)

One Member’s Experience and VIHA’s Response to the Human Rights Commission .

17. VIHA is not the appropriate party to be a respondent in this matter.

18. At all material times, VIHA was required to follow the PHO Order. It did not have any ability to make exceptions for unvaccinated employees to continue to work for VIHA outside of the terms of the PHO Order. The only individuals eligible for continued work if unvaccinated under the PHO Order were those who had a pending request for medical deferral under the terms of the PHO Order, and where the PHO’s office had confirmed the existence of such a pending request.

19. The complaint appears to be related to the effect of the PHO Order. VIHA did not issue the PHO Order and had no control over it. VIHA was only required to follow it. The PHO Order has the force of law.

20. VIHA denies that the complainant’s objections to the Vaccine Requirement were required by her religion, and that she is entitled to the protection of the Code in that regard, and puts the complainant to strict proof thereof: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47.

21. Even if the complainant could demonstrate an objection to the Vaccine Requirement on religious grounds, there was no accommodation available given the requirements of the PHO Order. It would have constituted an undue hardship for VIHA to breach the PHO Order by permitting the complainant to work when she was prohibited from doing so under the terms of the PHO Order.

22. After October 2021, the complainant was prohibited by force of the PHO Order from working for VIHA in any capacity. She could not fulfill the requirements of her position, and there were no alternative positions she could fill at VIHA.

23. The PHO Order expressly stated that it did not have an expiry date.

24. At all material times, VIHA abided by its collective agreement with the complainant.

25. It was a fundamental term of the complainant’s employment contract that the complainant was able to work at VIHA. The complainant’s failure to be vaccinated within the timelines imposed by the PHO Order, or to obtain an exemption from the PHO’s office, resulted in her inability to perform any of her job duties.

26. VIHA had no obligation to place the complainant on an indefinite unpaid leave of absence as a result of her inability or refusal to comply with the PHO Order. There is no entitlement to an unpaid leave of absence of indefinite length where an employee is legally prohibited from working with no foreseeable prospect of return.

27. Requiring VIHA to allow employees to remain on indefinite leaves of absence due to lack of compliance with the PHO Order would constitute an undue hardship on VIHA. It would cause significant operational pressures that would have a significant negative effect on VIHA’s mandate to provide health care.

28. VIHA never denied the complainant a reasonable accommodation. There was no accommodation that VIHA could have provided to the complainant.

29. The complainant’s employment contract with VIHA was frustrated by the PHO Order.

30. In the alternative, the complainant’s refusal to comply with the PHO Order amounts to resignation from her position with VIHA.

31. If the complainant wishes to challenge the effect of the PHO Order, then she must bring a Charter challenge against the PHO. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear Charter challenges: Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c. 210 (the “Code”), s. 32(i).

32. VIHA submits that this complaint should be dismissed pursuant to s. 27(1)(a) of the Code, as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this complaint.

33. VIHA submits that this complaint should be dismissed pursuant to s. 27(1)(b) of the Code, as the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint do not contravene the Code.

34. VIHA submits that this complaint should be dismissed pursuant to s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, as there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed.

35. VIHA submits that this complaint should be dismissed pursuant to s. 27(1)(f) of the Code, as the substance of the complaint is being appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

Legal Argument Against Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA)
Rebuttal to Paragraphs 17 to 35 of VIHA’s Response
Tribunal Case No. ********* | Jane Doe v. Vancouver Island Health Authority

This response challenges VIHA’s reliance on the Provincial Health Officer’s (PHO) order as justification for terminating the complainant’s employment. The PHO order, while legally binding at the time, was subject to discretionary enforcement and alternative accommodations. VIHA failed in its duty to accommodate under the BC Human Rights Code, misapplied legal principles regarding contractual frustration, and failed to consider the evolving public health landscape. Additionally, VIHA's procedural conduct violated basic principles of natural justice and fair representation.

VIHA argues that it was merely following the PHO Order (Paragraphs 18-19). However, the PHO Order was a directive—not an absolute mandate—and did not remove VIHA’s responsibility under the Human Rights Code (RSBC 1996, c. 210) to accommodate religious beliefs where possible.

VIHA claims that the employment contract was “frustrated” by the PHO Order. However, frustration of contract requires permanent impossibility, which was not the case. Public health orders regarding mandatory vaccination were lifted in 2024. A temporary impediment does not constitute frustration—the employment relationship could have been maintained via unpaid leave.

1. In Paragraph 21, VIHA states that even if a religious belief was valid, there was no accommodation available. However, in Paragraph 26, VIHA states it had no obligation to provide unpaid leave. This is contradictory—if VIHA had discretion over unpaid leave, then accommodation was possible.
2. In Paragraph 31, VIHA states that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Charter challenges. This is irrelevant because this is not a Charter challenge. The complaint is based on statutory violations under the BC Human Rights Code, which is squarely within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

VIHA seeks dismissal under Sections 27(1)(a), (b), (c), and (f) of the Code, but these arguments fail:

• Section 27(1)(a): The Tribunal does have jurisdiction over complaints of religious discrimination in employment under Section 13 of the Code.
• Section 27(1)(b): VIHA violated Section 13(1) by failing to accommodate religious beliefs to the point of undue hardship.
• Section 27(1)(c): The BC Human Rights Tribunal has already acknowledged the complaint has merit and proceeded to mediation.
• Section 27(1)(f): The existence of a grievance does not automatically disqualify a human rights claim. The Tribunal has held that parallel grievance and human rights processes can coexist.
• 
  

VIHA cannot use the PHO Order as a blanket defense to justify its failure to accommodate the complainant’s religious beliefs. Accordingly, this Tribunal should reject VIHA’s motion to dismiss and proceed with a full hearing on the merits.

If anyone need helps doing appeals or section 12's please feel free to reach out to me.