A former PepsiCo Beverages Canada worker lost both his duty of fair representation complaint and an occupational health and safety reprisal application after the Ontario Labour Relations Board found he had waited far too long to file either claim.
The board dismissed the two applications in a March 2026 decision, finding the worker had provided no satisfactory explanation for delays exceeding two years in one case and more than one year in the other.
Background
The worker had been employed with PepsiCo since approximately 2002 and was a member of Teamsters Local 938. He sustained injuries in 2016 and 2017 and had not worked for the company since. In mid-2018, he was granted an unpaid medical leave as an accommodation.
In December 2022, PepsiCo terminated his employment, stating in a letter that it was unable to safely accommodate his medical restrictions and that the employment contract had been frustrated. The worker asked the union to file a wrongful termination grievance in January 2023. The union did so, but after a grievance meeting in March 2023, PepsiCo denied the grievance. The union informed the worker in writing that it would not proceed further, having concluded the grievance would not succeed.
The worker did not file his applications with the board until July 25, 2025 — more than two years after receiving the union’s decision.
The duty of fair representation complaint
The worker alleged the union had failed to properly represent him in connection with the termination grievance, the denial of various benefits dating back to 2018, and a dispute over the calculation of his severance pay.
The board noted that where a delay exceeds one year, the burden shifts to the applicant to provide a satisfactory explanation. The worker offered none for the gap between the union’s March 2023 decision and his July 2025 filing.
On the benefits allegations, the board found the underlying facts predated 2023 and again no explanation was provided for why those issues had not been raised earlier.
The severance dispute involved a more recent sequence of events. The worker had contacted the union about his severance concerns in May 2024, and by late July 2024, the union had told him it would not assist further and suggested he rely on his own legal counsel — counsel he had already retained. The worker received his severance payment on July 23, 2024, and the union withdrew its assistance the following day.
The board found this still left an unexplained delay of more than a year before the filing date. It also noted the worker had failed to explain why he did not raise his severance concerns with the union sooner, despite having disputed the calculations as early as March 2023.
The duty of fair representation complaint was dismissed.
The reprisal application
The worker also filed a reprisal application under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging the employer had retaliated against him. The board identified two possible employer actions that could qualify as reprisals: the termination in December 2022 and the alleged underpayment of severance.
On the termination, the board found the application had been filed well over two years after the fact, with no compelling reason offered for the delay.
On the severance issue, the board applied the same reasoning as in the duty of fair representation analysis. The worker had notice of the severance amount no later than July 23, 2024, yet filed his application more than a year later without explaining why.
The board acknowledged that some latitude is given to parties unfamiliar with their statutory rights, but noted that allowance is measured in months rather than years absent exceptional circumstances. The worker presented no such circumstances.
The reprisal application was also dismissed.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v Teamsters Union Local 938, 2026 CanLII 27195 (ON LRB)
