Providence Health Care Society (Inner City Youth Program) (Re)
A clinic support assistant whose employment ended under the COVID-19 vaccine mandate claimed the union discriminated against her and acted in bad faith — describing union follow-up as harassment, alleging confidentiality breaches, and challenging the union’s conduct during the post-mandate rehiring process. The BCLRB dismissed all allegations.
Background
The applicant, Ileana Rae Larson, was employed as a Clinic Support Assistant with Providence Health Care Society’s Inner City Youth Program until November 2021, when her employment was terminated for non-compliance with the Provincial Health Officer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Hospital Employees’ Union filed grievances on behalf of employees whose employment was terminated for non-compliance, including on behalf of the applicant.
After the PHO Order was lifted, the Union negotiated a Letter of Understanding (LOU) with the Employer to facilitate the rehiring of former employees, including reinstatement of seniority, service, and sick leave banks for those rehired by a specified deadline. The applicant was not rehired. She alleged the Union’s representation was discriminatory and in bad faith — both in its handling of her termination grievance and its representation during the LOU rehiring process — because she was unvaccinated. She claimed the Union harassed her into getting vaccinated, failed to provide a shop steward at key meetings, did not maintain confidentiality of her medical information, and did not assist her with a request to work remotely.
Issue
Did the Union breach its duty of fair representation under section 12 of the Labour Relations Code (the “Code”): (a) in its representation of the applicant with respect to the termination of her employment; or (b) in its representation of the applicant during the rehiring process?
Decision
Vice-Chair Trask dismissed the application on both grounds.
On the termination grievance: the record showed the Union communicated with the applicant throughout the vaccine mandate period, advised her of employment repercussions for non-compliance, filed a grievance on her behalf, explored accommodation options, and monitored and assessed relevant arbitral decisions before concluding it would not succeed. The Union’s follow-up with the applicant about vaccination — which she characterized as pressure — was in fact advice about the consequences of non-compliance and did not constitute discriminatory conduct. The allegation about remote work accommodation failed because the applicant refused to provide the medical documentation that would have enabled the Union to assist her. No particulars supported the allegation that the Union disclosed her medical information to colleagues.
On the rehiring process: a Union representative communicated with the applicant promptly, answered her questions about the LOU, and explained the application process and timelines. Although no shop steward was assigned for the job application process, the Union’s written guidance was clear and responsive. There was no evidence the Union acted with an improper purpose or intent to deceive.
The Vice-Chair acknowledged the personal difficulty the applicant experienced in losing her employment, but confirmed that the section 12 standard concerns the manner of union representation of an employee as a whole, not the outcome or the applicant’s level of satisfaction with the Union’s decisions.
Citation: 2026 BCLRB 5