Complaint Against Union Dismissed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

Reasons for decision [NAME], complainant, and [NAME], respondent, and [COMPANY], employer . Board File: 037226-C Neutral Citation: 2026 [NAME] 1239 April 10, 2026 The panel of the [NAME] (the Board) was composed of [NAME], Vice-Chairperson, and Mr. [NAME] and [NAME], Members. Parties’ [NAME] of Record Mr. [NAME] and [NAME], for Mr. [NAME]; Mr. [NAME], for the [NAME]; Mr. [NAME], for [COMPANY]. These reasons for decision were written by [NAME], Member .

I. Nature of the Complaint [ 1 ] On November 28, 2023, Mr. [NAME] (the complainant) filed a complaint against the [NAME] (the union), alleging that it had breached the duty of fair representation (DFR) it owed him under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code (the Code ). Section 37 reads as follows: 37 A trade union or representative of a trade union that is the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit with respect to their rights under the collective agreement that is applicable to them. [ 2 ] Mr. [NAME] claimed that the union refused to file a grievance on his behalf regarding the employer’s failure to reinstate him following a disability-related absence.

II. Background and Facts [ 3 ] [COMPANY] ([NAME] or the employer) is a pipeline construction company. It does not own or operate any pipelines. It works on contracts on a project-by-project basis. Its normal operations include such activities as mainline construction, pipeline replacements, lateral construction, maintenance projects, pipeline abandonments, emergency repairs and construction planning and consulting. At any given time, the employer may have crews operating on various projects throughout Canada. [ 4 ] [NAME] was engaged by [NAME] ([NAME]) to construct two sections of new pipeline as part of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP). [NAME] is owned and operated by [NAME], a subsidiary of the Canadian Development Investment Corporation. The Trans Mountain pipeline is approximately 1,176 kilometres long and transports oil products from Edmonton, Alberta, to Burnaby, British Columbia. [ 5 ] The TMEP involved adding approximately 990 kilometres of new pipeline to the Trans Mountain pipeline to increase capacity. The existing pipeline continued to operate while the expansion was developed. The new pipeline commenced operation in May 2024. [ 6 ] The pipeline project was broken down into nine smaller lengths, or “spreads,” each of which was awarded to various construction contractors. [NAME] was engaged by [NAME] to construct two of these spreads, both of which were within British Columbia. The first project, in and around Clearwater, British Columbia, involved an approximately 75 kilometre section of new pipeline construction and was completed in September 2023. [ 7 ] The second construction project involved an approximately 35.55 kilometre section of pipeline located in the Fraser Valley Regional District in British Columbia. This project paralleled the original pipeline, but it did not join it or involve any work on it. The employer engaged its own workforce and subcontractors to perform the work on this project. Most of the employer’s workers are engaged on a project-by-project basis from [NAME]. The employer is directly responsible for the day-to-day management of its workers and contractors. [NAME] does not manage or direct the employer’s workforce. [ 8 ] The employer began construction on the second project in January 2023 and started winding down in early 2024. [NAME] provided the employer with a certificate of mechanical completion on January 30, 2024, and a certificate of completion for the general construction on May 1, 2024. [ 9 ] The employer has no ongoing role with the TMEP. It completed its final demobilization activities on July 13, 2024, and some administrative work was completed off-site by November 12, 2024. [ 10 ] The complainant was a heavy equipment operator who had worked for [NAME], as a member of the union, on the second project in Chilliwack, British Columbia, from February to August 2023, when he took a medical leave of absence. [ 11 ] On November 27, 2023, Mr. [NAME] submitted supporting documents to his complaint, which he filed the following day. [ 12 ] Additional supporting documents were filed in conjunction with the complainant’s complaint form, and further documents were filed on December 1 and 6, 2023. [ 13 ] On December 11, 2023, the complainant filed documents that superseded the previously filed documentation. He filed additional documentation on December 13, 14, 24 and 27, 2023, and on January 31, 2024. [ 14 ] Sadly, on March 6, 2024, the complainant passed away. [ 15 ] On November 18, 2024, the Board received a letter from the complainant’s father, [NAME], expressing his and his wife [NAME]’s desire to continue with the instant complaint, as [NAME] of the complainant’s estate. [ 16 ] On December 12, 2024, the Board’s Industrial Relations Officer, Western Region, acknowledged receipt of the letter and transmitted it to the parties. [ 17 ] On February 14, 2025, the union wrote to the Board, stating that the employer is provincially regulated and that the complainant had filed DFR complaints regarding the same issue with both the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) and the Board. The BCLRB dismissed the complaint before it on February 13, 2025. [ 18 ] On July 25, 2025, the Board’s Regional Director (Registrar), Western Region, asked the parties to provide submissions on the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint and to comment on the BCLRB’s decision in that regard. [ 19 ] The employer filed its submission on August 18, 2025, the union filed its submission on August 25, and [NAME] filed their submission on October 3, 2025. The union declined to file a reply submission.

III. Positions of the Parties A. The Employer’s Position [ 20 ] The employer’s submissions in support of its position may be summarized as follows. [ 21 ] The employer operates as a provincially regulated employer and follows the employment standards legislation of the province in which it is performing work. The employer has operated as though it were subject to the jurisdiction of the BCLRB and the [NAME] . [ 22 ] Pursuant to the relevant sections of the Code and the Constitution Act, 1867 (which the Board will cite under the Analysis and Decision section below), while provinces have jurisdiction over local works and undertakings, the works and undertakings that connect the province with another province or that extend beyond the province are within federal jurisdiction. [ 23 ] Labour relations is presumptively a provincial matter, and the federal government may acquire jurisdiction over labour relations only by way of exception. The employer cites [NAME], a Division of [NAME] , 2013 [NAME] 689, and cases cited therein, in support of this principle. [ 24 ] A work, undertaking or business can fall within the exceptional jurisdiction either by direct jurisdiction, when the employer itself is a federal work, undertaking or business, or by derivative jurisdiction, when the employer’s operations are vital, essential or integral to a [NAME]. [ 25 ] To determine whether an entity is within federal jurisdiction, the Board will first examine the essential nature of the employer’s operation to determine if it is a core [NAME]. If it is not, then the Board will consider whether there is derivative federal jurisdiction by analyzing whether the employer’s activities are vital, essential or integral to a core [NAME]. The employer cites Boskalis Canada [COMPANY]. , 2020 [NAME] 952, at paragraph 29, in support of this principle. [ 26 ] Regarding the first part of the test, the employer does not own or operate interprovincial pipelines and therefore does not constitute a federal work, undertaking or business. The core nature of the employer’s operation is the construction of pipelines. As a result, the Board has no direct jurisdiction over the labour relations of the employer. [ 27 ] Regarding the assessment of whether there is derivative federal jurisdiction, Northern Telecom v. Communication Workers , [1983] 1 S.C.R. 733, sets out the following relevant factors used by adjudicators to determine whether the employer is integral to a [NAME]: (i) the nature of the operation as a going concern and the role of the employees concerned within it; (ii) the nature of the corporate relationship between the employer and the core federal operation at issue; (iii) the importance of the work being done for the core federal operation as compared to other customers or clients; and (iv) the physical and operational connection between the employer and the core [NAME]. [ 28 ] In Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Min. Wage Com. , [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754 ( [NAME] ), the Supreme Court of Canada ([NAME]) held that the construction of an airport by a contractor did not fall within federal jurisdiction over airports. [ 29 ] When the employer at issue may be said to be performing construction and/or maintenance, adjudicators consider whether there is a continual and regular connection between the employer and the core [NAME], without regard to exceptional or casual factors. Work that involves construction, including repair or reconstruction of federal undertakings such as pipelines or railways, and is limited in duration, such as to a specific project, without an aspect of continuity or permanence has been found to be within provincial jurisdiction. In contrast, ongoing routine maintenance of a core [NAME] has commonly been treated as a kind of activity that might bring an operation into the federal orbit (see [COMPANY]. v. Construction and Specialized Workers’ Union, Local 1611 , 2002 CanLII 53412 (BC LRB), letter decision no. B49/2002, at paragraphs 52–55, and the cases cited therein). [ 30 ] More specifically regarding pipelines, when their operation extends beyond the boundaries of a province, they are a federal transportation undertaking under section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act , 1867 . [NAME] was applied in the context of an interprovincial pipeline in [NAME] (1986), 67 di 19 (CLRB no. 586), by the Board’s predecessor, the Canada Labour Relations Board (CLRB). In that case, the CLRB determined that the labour relations of a construction contractor engaged in the construction of pipelines by contract in all parts of Canada were within provincial jurisdiction. The CLRB concluded in that case that the operator of the interprovincial pipeline was a federal work but that the work done by the employer was not an essential or integral part of the operator’s operations. [ 31 ] [COMPANY]. , [1982] B.C.L.R.B.D. No. 25 (QL), the BCLRB found that contractors performing construction work on an interprovincial pipeline were essentially performing construction work as opposed to work integral to the operation of the pipeline itself. [ 32 ] The employer argues that applying the facts of the instant case to the applicable jurisprudence, there is no basis for the Board to find that the employer is covered by direct or derivative jurisdiction. It asserts that the presumption of provincial competence over its labour relations is not rebutted by the facts. [ 33 ] The employer submits that the fact that the BCLRB took jurisdiction and rendered a decision in this matter further supports its argument. B. The Union’s Position [ 34 ] The union adopts the submissions filed on behalf of the employer. It submits that the Board lacks jurisdiction and that the complaint should be dismissed. C. The Complainant’s Position [ 35 ] [NAME] submit that the pipeline is interprovincial, crossing between Alberta and British Columbia, and that the project therefore falls under federal jurisdiction. [ 36 ] [NAME] submit that the project is primarily regulated by the [NAME] Act , which established the Canada Energy Regulator ([NAME]) as the oversight body for construction, operation safety and tolls. They further submit that the pipeline is also subject to the Impact Assessment Act , as well as federal environmental statutes such as the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act . They state that while provinces may regulate matters of general application such as permits and environmental standards, they cannot obstruct the operation of the pipeline. [ 37 ] [NAME] argue that the project is a national one funded with national funds. They state that while the employer and the union must adhere to the regulations of the province in which they are operating, they must also adhere to the “regulations of the National Government in which they are incorporated or registered within” and as such “are subject to the [NAME].” [ 38 ] [NAME] submit that [NAME] is a federal corporation, governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act , and that the union is an international organization.

IV. Analysis and Decision [ 39 ] Section 16.1 of the Code provides that the Board may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing. Having reviewed all of the material on file, the Board is satisfied that the documentation before it is sufficient for it to determine this complaint without an oral hearing. [ 40 ] Section 4 of the Code states the following: 4 This Part applies in respect of employees who are employed on or in connection with the operation of any federal work, undertaking or business, in respect of the employers of all such employees in their relations with those employees and in respect of trade unions and employers’ organizations composed of those employees or employers. [ 41 ] In the above provision, “[t]his Part” refers to Part I (Industrial Relations) of the Code . [ 42 ] Such federal undertakings are defined in section 2 of the Code , the relevant portion of which reads as follows: 2 In this Act, … federal work, undertaking or business means any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of [NAME], including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, … (b) a railway, canal, telegraph or other work or undertaking connecting any province with any other province, or extending beyond the limits of a province. [ 43 ] Sections 92(10)(a) and 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 , provide as follows: 92 In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, … 10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes: (a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province: … 13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province. [ 44 ] As the Board noted in [COMPANY]. , 2015 [NAME] 773 (affirmed in [COMPANY]. v. [NAME], Local 175 , 2015 FCA 259): [ 28 ] … it is well settled that provincial competence over labour relations is the rule by virtue of their exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights under section 92(13) of The Constitution Act, 1867 . Exceptionally, [NAME] may assert jurisdiction where labour relations are shown to be “an integral part of its primary competence over some other single federal subject” ( NIL/TU, [COMPANY] v. B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union , 2010 [NAME] 45; [2010] 2 S.C.R. 696; and [COMPANY]. v. Minimum Wage Commission et al. , [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754 ( [NAME] )). [ 45 ] Hence, labour relations presumptively fall under provincial jurisdiction because they come within a class of subject that relates to property and civil rights in the province. However, they may, by exception, fall under federal jurisdiction. As set out in Boskalis Canada [COMPANY]. : [ 29 ] A work, undertaking or business can fall within the exceptional federal jurisdiction in one of two ways. First, the entity’s operations may fall squarely or directly within the legislative authority of [NAME] (direct jurisdiction). Second, the entity’s operations may be vital, essential or integral to a [NAME] (derivative jurisdiction). Both cases require an examination of the essential operational nature of the entity (see [NAME] at paragraph 18). The focus of the analysis is on the normal and habitual activities of the undertaking as a going concern, without regard for exceptional or casual aspects (see Northern Telecom v. Communications Workers , [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115). [ 30 ] In order to determine whether an entity is within the federal jurisdiction and consequently within the Board’s jurisdiction, the Board will first examine the essential nature of the operations of the entity itself to ascertain if it is a core [NAME]. If the Board is unable to conclude that there is direct federal jurisdiction, the Board will then consider whether there is derivative federal jurisdiction by analyzing whether the entity’s activities are vital, essential or integral to a core [NAME]. [ 46 ] The employer neither owns nor operates an interprovincial pipeline. The core nature of its operation is the construction of pipelines, which does not fall squarely or directly within the legislative authority of [NAME]. As a result, the Board has no direct jurisdiction over the labour relations of the employer. [ 47 ] Regarding derivative jurisdiction, [COMPANY] v. [NAME] , 2019 ONSC 5613 (CanLII), referred to the factors to be considered to determine whether an enterprise forms an integral part of a [NAME] as follows: [ 40 ] In an earlier case, [NAME] v. [NAME] , 1979 CanLII 3 ([NAME]), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115, the Supreme Court of Canada had set out factors to be considered in determining whether an enterprise formed an integral part of a [NAME] (at p. 135). These factors have been described, in more generic words, by the Federal Court of Appeal in Syndicat des agents de sécurité [NAME] v. [NAME]. , 2011 FCA 302 at para. 36: a. the general nature of the service provider’s operation as a going concern and, in particular, the role of the services within that operation; b. the nature of the corporate relationship between the service provider and the other companies that it serves, notably the [NAME] at issue; c. the importance of the work done for the [NAME] at issue as compared with other customers of the service provider; and d. the physical and operational connection between the services provided and the [NAME] at issue and, in particular, the extent of these services in the operation of the [NAME] as a whole. [ 48 ] It went on to discuss the application of these factors in cases involving construction activity at an airport as follows: [ 41 ] In both [NAME] and [NAME] , above, the Courts held that construction activity at an airport was not vital, essential or integral to the operation of the airport and the construction companies remained subject to provincial employment laws. The Supreme Court in [NAME] drew a distinction between the application of provincial laws respecting the location or building specifications for an airport, which are within exclusive federal jurisdiction, and the manner of carrying out construction work. It held that the federal interest in aeronautics did not extend to the labour relations of those carrying out construction work. In [NAME] , the [ADDRESS] of Appeal reached the same conclusion. While noting that the lengthy construction project required close coordination with the airport authority, that was not the same as integration in the airport operations (at para. 45). [ 49 ] As noted in the employer’s submission, these principles have been applied more specifically to pipeline construction in [NAME] and [COMPANY]. , wherein it was determined that construction work on an interprovincial pipeline was not work that was integral to the operations of a federal work or undertaking. Hence, the employers in question were deemed to be governed by provincial labour relations statutes. [ 50 ] In Alcock , 2026 [NAME] LD 5987, a recent Board decision under Part III (Standard Hours, Wages, Vacations and Holidays) of the Code , which governs labour standards, the Board reiterated these principles in relation to pipelines, as follows: In the same way that the [NAME] found that construction of a runway in [NAME] was not federal, the Board accepts that the construction of a section of a pipeline, even if it were federally regulated, would not on its own bring the respondent’s business into federal competence. To find such a relationship between the activity of the respondent and the relevant [NAME], the [NAME] must be dependent to a significant degree on the workers in question, or the services provided to the [NAME] must form the exclusive or principal part of the construction company’s business. This is simply not the case where the respondent is providing construction services on discrete projects that are temporary and not ongoing. (page 7) [ 51 ] The employer in the case at hand is in the business of constructing pipelines. It does not work exclusively or primarily for [NAME] and has no corporate relationship with it either. The TMEP is one of many discrete projects that the employer has been contracted to work on. The employer has no role in the ongoing operation of the pipelines once constructed and no ongoing contract of maintenance and repair. [ 52 ] The application of the above-noted principles and jurisprudence to the case at hand leads the Board to conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint. While not determinative, this is further supported by the fact that the BCLRB assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the same matter before the Board. [ 53 ] [NAME] argue that the Board has jurisdiction because the pipeline itself is federally regulated.

For the reasons set out above, that does not bring the activities of the employer into the ambit of federal regulation for labour relations purposes. [ 54 ] [NAME] also argue that the pipeline is primarily regulated by various federal statutes, including the [NAME] Act , which establishes the [NAME] as an oversight body for construction, operation safety and tolls. [ 55 ] The [NAME] addressed this issue in [NAME] when it stated the following: The construction of an airport is not in every respect an integral part of aeronautics. Much depends on what is meant by the word “construction.” To decide whether to build an airport and where to build it involves aspects of airport construction which undoubtedly constitute matters of exclusive federal concern: the Johannesson case. This is why decisions of this type are not subject to municipal regulation or permission: the Johannesson case; City of [NAME] v. [NAME] Co. [[1905] A.C. 52]; the result in [NAME] v. [NAME]. [(1960), 22 D.L.R. (2d) 247] can also be justified on this ground. Similarly, the design of a future airport, its dimensions, the materials to be incorporated into the various buildings, runways and structures, and other similar specifications are, from a legislative point of view and apart from contract, matters of exclusive federal concern. The reason is that decisions made on these subjects will be permanently reflected in the structure of the finished product and are such as to have a direct effect upon its operational qualities and, therefore, upon its suitability for the purposes of aeronautics. But the mode or manner of carrying out the same decisions in the act of constructing an airport stand on a different footing. Thus, the requirement that workers wear a protective helmet on all construction sites including the construction site of a new airport has everything to do with construction and with provincial safety regulations and nothing to do with aeronautics: see R. v. [COMPANY]. [(1968), 69 D.L.R. (2d) 649] and [NAME] (1961) Ltd. [[1972] 1 O.R. 42]. … (pages 770–771) [ 56 ] Hence, while there may be federal legislative and regulatory oversight over planning, construction and other matters concerning interprovincial pipelines, the manner of carrying out the construction remains provincially regulated. [ 57 ] In Holland , 2025 [NAME] LD 5679, involving an unjust dismissal complaint under Part III, the Part of the Code that covers labour standards, the employer was an [NAME] that had been engaged by [COMPANY]. to provide services related to environmental planning for the TMEP, among other things. The complainant argued that her work on the TMEP was integral, vital or essential to a core [NAME] because that work was required to comply with federal regulations under the [NAME] Act . The Board did not concur with that submission and stated the following: … federal and provincial governments have the power to enact legislation related to environmental matters. The Board finds that the fact that the Expansion Project is legislated by federal legislation related to environmental matters does not automatically make all employees working on it subject to federal labour legislation. (page 5) [ 58 ] The Board concluded that the employer’s work on the TMEP was provincially regulated and dismissed the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction. [ 59 ] For the same reasons set out in [NAME] , this argument—that the pipeline is primarily regulated by various federal statutes, including the [NAME] Act —does not persuade the Board that the employer’s business is federally regulated from a labour relations standpoint. [ 60 ] [NAME] also refer to the fact that the project is funded with national funds. The Board does not accept this argument either. The source of any funding of the project does not affect the constitutional determination of an undertaking (see [NAME] , 2025 [NAME] LD 5680 and the cases cited therein). [ 61 ] [NAME] argue that [NAME] is incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act and that it therefore must be federally regulated from a labour relations standpoint. Whether a business is federally or provincially incorporated is unrelated to the issue at hand. Many provincially regulated businesses incorporate federally for various reasons, including ease of operation throughout the country. It allows a business to operate and use its corporate name across various provinces. A large grocery chain, for example, will have supermarkets in more than one province and decide to incorporate federally for this reason. This does not mean that each supermarket is governed by federal labour laws. [ 62 ] Finally, [NAME] submit that the union advertises itself as an international organization with various locals across Canada. By the same token, the fact that the union may have locals across the country does not mean that the employers for whom its members work are governed by federal labour laws. The tests used to make that determination have been set out above. [ 63 ] For all the reasons explained above, the presumption of provincial competence over the employer’s labour relations has not been rebutted. Therefore, the Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

V. Conclusion [ 64 ] For all these reasons, the complaint is dismissed. ____________________ [NAME]-Chairperson ____________________ [NAME] Member ____________________ [NAME] Member