The dilemma: 140 workers told to relocate within 30 days – but arbitration could take 4 months
The BC Court of Appeal ruled recently against TELUS Communications after it planned to consolidate call centres across four provinces, affecting roughly 1,000 unionized workers.
Most would be required to report to the office three days a week but 140 employees based in Barrie, Ont., would need to relocate to Montreal.
The company gave workers 30 days to choose: accept the changes or take severance. The deadline was Aug. 9, 2024.
Grievance challenges consolidation
The Telecommunications Workers Union filed grievances on July 29, 2024, challenging the consolidations. The collective agreement allowed up to 120 days between filing a grievance and having an arbitrator appointed but workers facing relocation decisions couldn't wait that long.
So, the union went to the BC Supreme Court that same day, asking a judge to pause the Aug. 9 deadline. TELUS, however, argued that the court had no authority to interfere. Section 60(1)(a.2) of the Canada Labour Code gives arbitrators power to grant interim injunctions, the employer said.
The union's counter was simple: arbitrators only have that power once they're actually appointed. With no arbitrator in place and workers staring down life-changing decisions, someone had to act now.
The chambers judge sides with workers
The judge sided with the union and granted the injunction on Aug. 8, 2024. He found that TELUS's "tight timelines did not allow for the arbitral process to provide an adequate alternative remedy."
TELUS appealed, but in a Jan. 13, 2026, decision, Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten of the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel.
"The plain fact is that until an arbitrator was in place, there was no tribunal in existence and available to the Union under the collective agreement or the statutory scheme that could grant the relief sought," Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten wrote. "As found by the judge, the Union's affected members were facing the prospect of irreparable harm, and a forum was necessary to address that issue."
Why arbitrator powers didn't eliminate the gap
The court emphasized that superior courts keep residual discretionary power to step in when there's no adequate alternative remedy available. This principle has existed for decades, and legislative changes giving arbitrators new powers don't wipe it out.
TELUS argued that letting courts intervene would do "violence" to the labour relations scheme. The court rejected that notion, noting that "deference to labour tribunals and exclusivity of jurisdiction to an arbitrator are not inconsistent with a residual jurisdiction in the courts to grant relief unavailable under the statutory labour scheme."
The employer had pointed to a 2000 Yukon case that said Section 60(1)(a.2) "enlarged" arbitrator jurisdiction and eliminated any gap in available remedies. But Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten found that case unpersuasive, noting "it is unclear whether an arbitrator was in place at the time the bargaining agent in P.S.A.C. filed its application for interim relief; in any event, that decision is not binding on this Court."
The court acknowledged that Section 60(1)(a.2) did fill the specific gap identified in earlier Supreme Court cases – situations where neither the collective agreement nor the Canada Labour Code offered a path to postpone job changes. But the provision only works when there's an arbitrator to invoke it.
When the rule of law can't be a sometime thing
The decision turned on a fundamental principle about access to justice. Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten quoted the Supreme Court's 1996 Canadian Pacific decision to drive the point home: "It is important that there be a tribunal capable of resolving the matter, if a legal, rather than extra-legal, solution is to be found. If the rule of law is not to be reduced to a patchwork, sometime thing, there must be a body to which disputants may turn where statutes and statutory schemes offer no relief."
In this case, the only tribunal capable of resolving the matter of irreparable harm at the time of the injunction application was the Supreme Court, she said.
An arbitrator was appointed four days after the injunction. The grievances went ahead in September 2024, and the arbitrator dismissed them on October 15. The injunction had been designed to expire two months after the arbitrator's appointment, so it lapsed automatically.
Despite winning the underlying grievances, TELUS pushed ahead with the appeal, wanting judicial clarity on whether courts should be getting involved at all.
Negotiated timelines aren't a free pass
TELUS tried another angle: if the collective agreement timelines make it impossible to get quick arbitrator appointments, that's what both parties negotiated. They should live with the consequences, and courts shouldn't rescue anyone from their bargain.
The court disagreed because accepting that logic, Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten wrote, would mean "the only way to ensure the availability of interim relief to prevent irreparable harm pre-appointment would be to negotiate a collective agreement that provides for the automatic appointment of an arbitrator on the same day a grievance is filed. The unworkability of that scenario is self-evident."
TELUS also argued that the injunction should have ended the moment an arbitrator was appointed, not two months later. The court agreed that would have been preferable but found no error warranting intervention. The judge had built in flexibility allowing earlier termination by agreement, court order, or by TELUS raising the issue with the arbitrator once appointed.
The chambers judge had directed the parties to "reasonably cooperate in the expeditious commencement of the arbitration proceedings and selection of the arbitrator," giving both sides tools to address timing concerns.
No undertaking required in labour context
The chambers judge had also declined to require the union to post an undertaking as to damages – essentially a promise to compensate TELUS if the injunction caused financial harm and the union lost the grievances. Courts typically require these undertakings when granting injunctions. But labour arbitrators generally don't.
The judge had noted "such undertakings are not required in labour arbitrations in exchange for interim injunctions" and found the usual labour relations approach was appropriate here given the short duration and built-in safeguards.
The appeal court found no error in that exercise of discretion. Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten wrote that the judge "did not misdirect himself on the law surrounding undertakings, misapprehend the record, fail to consider relevant factors, or wrongly emphasize one factor over another." He simply concluded that given the circumstances, "the usual approach taken to undertakings in the labour relations realm (a relevant consideration) was also appropriate here."
Court’s jurisdiction for injunctions
The decision confirms that superior courts retain jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions in federal labour disputes when no arbitrator has been appointed, even when statutory provisions give arbitrators that same power once they're in place.
As Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten put it, until an arbitrator is "selected by the parties to a collective agreement or appointed by the Minister," the provision giving arbitrators injunction powers provides no relief.
While the injunction ultimately expired and the arbitrator dismissed the union's grievances on the merits, the appeal court found the jurisdictional questions important enough to address given the likelihood similar timing gaps will arise under other collective agreements with lengthy appointment processes. The court rejected TELUS's argument that negotiated timelines eliminating quick arbitrator access should insulate employers from judicial oversight, calling that scenario "self-evidently" unworkable.
See TELUS Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers Union, 2026 BCCA 5
