The OLRB weighed in on what fair representation really requires from unions
A veteran Ontario meat plant worker accumulated 45 years of service, nine rounds of progressive discipline, a termination, and an arbitration win — and still never returned to work. On February 24, 2026, Ontario Labour Relations Board Vice-Chair Jordan Kirkness dismissed the application of Wayne Thomas Stokes, who alleged that his union, UFCW 175 & 633, had violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, in relation to his employment with Olymel L.P. in Brampton.
Starting in 2012, Stokes worked as a Line Supplier at Olymel's Brampton plant, supplying raw products to fast-moving production lines using a "combo." If he failed to supply the correct materials, the employer's productivity and profitability would be significantly reduced. Between 2021 and 2024, he received nine disciplinary measures, including verbal and written warnings, suspensions of one, three, and five days, and two removals from his Line Supplier role, for infractions involving failing to properly label or scan meat products, obstructing access to a cooler, and supplying wrong materials to production lines.
The culminating incident occurred on April 26, 2024. Stokes supplied the wrong meat to a production line, blocked an entrance with his combo when the line went down, and suggested that an employee working on the line ought to have stopped him before he dumped the wrong meat on the line. He was terminated that day.
Throughout the discipline process, the union filed grievances on Stokes's behalf and successfully negotiated his reinstatement to the Line Supplier role on two occasions. After his termination, the union pursued arbitration and secured an award ordering Olymel to reinstate Stokes to a position other than Line Supplier with a similar shift schedule. Stokes was offered a lower position. He did not accept it and has not returned to the workplace.
Union didn’t support harassment claim, other grievance: worker
At the consultation, Stokes's allegations against the union fell into three categories. First, he alleged his co-workers and supervisors mistreated and bullied him, claiming he was almost hit by a forklift twice in incidents he described as intentional and criminal, and that the union "swept it under the rug." The union responded that one incident was investigated, found to be unintentional, and that the driver was nevertheless disciplined, and that it had advised Stokes each time to contact the police or file a harassment complaint, which he never did.
Second, Stokes alleged the union failed to properly represent him in an earlier grievance, claiming a union representative "tore up" a settlement document after he wrote "duress" beneath his signature, became upset, called management into the room, and ended the meeting abruptly. Union representative Ricardo Bocanegra offered a different account: after successfully negotiating a settlement under which Stokes would be reinstated but the discipline would remain on his record, the word "duress" rendered the document unusable, as it did not confirm Stokes's voluntary agreement. He tore it up and placed it in the garbage.
Third, and most significantly, Stokes alleged the union colluded with the employer, did not allow him to call evidence at arbitration, and failed to pursue remedies available under the collective agreement. He described two witnesses who would have testified to workplace bullying. The union maintained that evidence was not relevant to the termination grievance, that it had advocated strongly throughout, and that it had successfully procured his reinstatement.
Where the duty of fair representation ends
Section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires that a union "shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith" in representing bargaining unit employees. Drawing on Chrysler Canada (1999), the Board defined "arbitrary" as "conduct which is capricious, implausible, or unreasonable in the circumstances"; "discriminatory" as "distinguishing between or treating employees differently without good reason"; and "bad faith" as "conduct motivated by hostility, malice, ill-will or dishonesty."
The Board rejected all three categories of Stokes's allegations. On the settlement document, the Board found the union representative acted properly: it is generally not improper for a union representative to disagree with a grievor or refrain from taking a step they expect to jeopardize negotiations, and Stokes had a right to refuse to sign the settlement offer. On the termination grievance, the Board noted that the witnesses Stokes wanted to call could speak only to his general mistreatment in the workplace, not the culminating incident — evidence that was likely not material, and whose relevance was questionable.
Vice-Chair Kirkness wrote: "It is difficult to imagine what more the union could have done to represent the applicant in this arbitration." The arbitrator had ordered reinstatement to another position because he found that Stokes "could not keep up with the demanding pace of the Line Supplier duties." The Board concluded that the union's conduct throughout was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the application.
