Meeting notes by HR director show commitments promised by management, including raises and 'keeping the status quo'
The British Columbia Labour Relations Board has ordered remedial certification of a union at a hotel establishment after finding the employer committed multiple unfair labour practices during a housekeeping union organising drive.
UNITE HERE Local 40 was given the go‑ahead to organise at the EXchange Hotel Vancouver in the Board decision in Executive EXchange Hotel Limited Partnership, which was issued on Jan. 2, 2026, by Vice‑Chair Jonathan Hanvelt.
The union began organising at the downtown luxury hotel in early November 2024, focusing on housekeeping staff. Workers — led internally by housekeeping supervisor Vilnor Calderon and externally by union lead organiser Matthew de Marchi — raised concerns over heavy workloads, stress linked to “very high standards,” and rude treatment by supervisors. They also raised operational issues such as:
-
the credit system for allocating work
-
compulsory use of flashlights for inspections
-
inadequate supply of preferred gloves
-
shortages of linens
The union filed its certification application in February 2025, supported by at least 45 per cent of the proposed bargaining unit, and lodged two unfair labour practice complaints alleging the hotel had altered terms and conditions of employment and implemented a wage increase in order to discourage union support, contrary to sections 6(1) and 6(3)(d) of the Labour Relations Code.
Housekeeping meeting and rapid concessions
The Board’s findings centred on a housekeeping meeting held on Dec. 13, 2024. By that date, director of human resources Lisa Jackson and other managers knew the union was organising at the property. About 25 room attendants and housepersons attended the meeting alongside Jackson, chief financial officer Hanif Mawji, a member of the ownership family, and maintenance/engineering manager Eugenio “Juhn” Delmundo.
Jackson’s notes recorded that workers raised extensive complaints about workload, treatment and supplies. Her notes also captured several key commitments by management, including “[W]ill pay $50 cash + supply gloves,” “Move forward – we want to have meetings 2x/year,” and “About the raise. *We will be equal to the big hotels.”
A crucial passage in those notes read: “*allows for great flexibility – bonuses” and “[W]e want to keep the status quo + give us a chance to fix it by next week.” Vice‑Chair Hanvelt found these comments were made by Mawji and were aimed at inducing employees not to support the union, interpreting “status quo” as referring to a non‑union workplace.
The next day, Jackson drafted an action plan that immediately addressed most of the concerns raised: removing flashlights from inspections, instructing inspectors to fix minor deficiencies themselves, pausing Forbes Five‑Star standards training, increasing par levels of linens and towels, and scheduling biannual housekeeping meetings. The Board noted that the employer agreed to almost all employee requests and unilaterally introduced a wage increase to match “big hotels,” despite workers not seeking a raise at the meeting.
In 2024, more than 2,600 Quebec hotel workers went on strike to seek better deals from their employers.
Pressure on key organiser
The B.C. Labour Relations Board also accepted evidence that managers applied direct pressure on Calderon, a central internal organiser. On Dec. 13, 2024, Delmundo took Calderon for a drink at sister property Hotel Le Soleil and, according to Calderon, suggested he ask card signers to withdraw their support for the union, saying that achieving this “would be a great gift for Christmas.” The employer did not call Delmundo to testify.
On Feb. 15, 2025, during the Board‑run representation vote, general manager Glen Eleiter and executive housekeeper Kamal Bajwa summoned Calderon to a meeting. Calderon testified that Eleiter told him to “stop the Union” and referred to a screenshot allegedly showing Calderon contacting co‑workers about the campaign outside working hours. While the employer argued it could prohibit organising on company time and property, the Board found no legitimate basis for seeking to curtail off‑duty union activity or directing Calderon to halt the campaign entirely.
On contested facts, Vice‑Chair Hanvelt preferred Calderon’s evidence over Jackson’s, finding Calderon generally “consistent and credible,” but describing parts of Jackson’s evidence as “evasive or simply unreliable,” particularly around dates and her own notes.
The Board held that the employer breached section 6(1) by interfering with the formation of a trade union, and section 6(3)(d) by using promises, wage increases and altered conditions of employment to induce employees to refrain from supporting the union. It noted that employees signed 26 union cards between Nov. 27 and Dec. 13, 2024, but only one new card between Dec. 14, 2024, and Feb. 10, 2025, concluding that the breach of section 6(3)(d) “effectively stopped the Union’s organizing drive.”
Applying the amended section 14(4.1) of the Code, the Board decided remedial certification was “just and equitable,” rejecting the employer’s argument that such a remedy requires terminations or threats of termination. Vice‑Chair Hanvelt found the employer had “achieved through inducement what some other employers have sought to accomplish by severing employment relationships” and characterised its response as akin to “hit hard, hit early.”
The Board ordered UNITE HERE Local 40 certified to represent the bargaining unit and directed the employer to post the decision prominently in staff areas for one month.
While an employer may be found to have committed union-busting actions, that does not guarantee that unionization will be given certification, as the Manitoba Labour Board previously ruled.
