Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia v. Compensation Employees’ Union, 2026 CanLII 80667 (BC LA)
July 27, 2026

Arbitrator J. Najeeb Hassan has upheld a union policy grievance, finding that WorkSafeBC breached the collective agreement when it unilaterally implemented a new hybrid work model in 2025. The award is a significant one for employers looking to bring employees back to the office where remote work has been negotiated into the collective agreement.

Background

Before the pandemic, just over 200 bargaining unit employees worked from home on a limited hybrid basis. During and after the pandemic, most employees worked remotely. In 2022 bargaining, the parties negotiated a comprehensive Letter of Understanding (LOU B22) governing work-at-home arrangements (WAHAs). It permits the Employer to suspend or cancel a WAHA for specified reasons, including operational requirements on 45 days’ notice, and provides that WAHAs may be altered through mutual agreement of the manager and employee.

In November 2024, the Employer announced a revised model under its Remote Work Policy requiring more regular in-office attendance based on assigned “personas.” Beginning July 2, 2025, employees began attending the office weekly under the new model. The Union grieved.

The Decision

The arbitrator rejected the Employer’s management rights argument. He found that LOU B22 is a comprehensive framework that extinguished management rights to the extent it addresses cancellation, suspension and alteration of WAHAs.

Reviewing the bargaining history, the arbitrator noted that the Employer had proposed adding the word “alter” to the clause permitting unilateral suspension or cancellation, the Union rejected it, and the final language did not include it. The Employer conceded that the express language did not grant a unilateral power to alter WAHAs, and the extrinsic evidence did not establish a mutual intention to grant one. Three earlier unilateral changes that the Union did not grieve were insufficient to establish a past practice. Alteration required mutual agreement.

The Employer’s estoppel argument also failed. The Employer had relied on its own view of its management rights and the Remote Work Policy, not on any representation by the Union. The grievance was upheld, and remedy, affecting over 3,300 employees, was remitted to the parties.

Key Takeaways for Employers

• Where remote work is governed by negotiated collective agreement language, employer policy cannot override it.
• Bargaining history matters. A term proposed and dropped at the table can be decisive.
• A right to cancel is not necessarily a right to alter. Employers should confirm which tool their agreement actually provides before implementing changes.