Two senior tradesmen at a Williams Lake, B.C., sawmill have lost their grievances challenging the employer’s decision to reassign them to straight afternoon shifts in February 2024 without applying seniority, with an arbitrator finding the collective agreement does not extend seniority rights to shift assignments.
The arbitrator denied grievances filed by an electrician with seniority dating to 1980 — the most senior member of the bargaining unit — and a millwright ranked fourth in seniority with a 1993 start date. Both worked in the maintenance department at the employer’s Lakeview Division lumber mill, operated by Tolko Industries.
The dispute arose when the company moved from two production shifts to a single shift due to limited access to economical fibre. The weekend maintenance shift was cancelled, and several maintenance employees, including the grievors, were reassigned to a Tuesday-to-Saturday afternoon shift. The electrician had preferred a Whistle Chasing swing shift, while the millwright wanted to remain on Whistle Chasing, which he had been working before going on vacation. Junior employees were assigned to the preferred shifts.
The union, United Steelworkers Local 1-2017, argued the company breached the collective agreement by failing to recognize seniority. It relied on the agreement’s recognition clause, which states the company “recognizes the principle of seniority, competency considered,” and pointed to a longstanding past practice summarized in the phrase “senior may, junior must.”
Company position
The employer argued seniority is a purely contractual right and the collective agreement contains no language applying it to shift assignments. The plant manager testified the February 2024 changes were driven by business needs — specifically, the expanded maintenance window created when production dropped to a single shift required reorganizing the team based on skill sets, experience and certifications. He said seniority was considered but did not “trump” business needs.
The company acknowledged a long-standing practice of soliciting preferences and applying “senior may, junior must” for weekend maintenance shifts only. That practice had been documented in 2020 grievance resolves involving two other maintenance employees who had been assigned to undesirable shifts. The plant manager testified those settlements were limited in scope to filling vacancies on weekend shifts and did not extend to general shift assignments.
The plant manager also testified the reorganization produced measurable results, with up-time increasing from 81 per cent to 85 per cent, equivalent to an additional week of annual production.
Union evidence
The grievors testified they learned of their reassignments through a posted notice without consultation. The millwright said his foreman had told him before his vacation that his shift would not change, but he was reassigned while away. He admitted on cross-examination that he had attended a plant committee meeting where union representatives were told nothing was set in stone.
The plant chair, who has held that role for 30 years, testified that the “senior may, junior must” principle applied across maintenance shifts, citing the rebuild period after a 2017 sawmill fire and the two earlier grievance resolves. He conceded the collective agreement contains no specific language applying seniority to shift assignments and that letters of understanding governing incumbency and relief training applied only to production positions.
Arbitrator’s analysis
The arbitrator found that the general recognition of seniority in the collective agreement, when read alongside the specific seniority provisions that follow it, did not support the grievances.
“If [the recognition clause] had the breadth and scope claimed by the Union, extending to shift assignments despite the absence of explicit language, there would be no need for all the detail negotiated” in the subsequent provisions covering promotion, reduction of forces, rehiring and related matters, the arbitrator found.
The arbitrator adopted reasoning from prior decisions holding that “the principle of seniority, in the legal sense, is not really a principle at all, but rather a set of very specific provisions set out in collective agreements that define how seniority is earned and retained, and its value.”
On the union’s argument that the assignments were arbitrary or discriminatory, the arbitrator rejected the claim. The business rationale — increased maintenance requirements during expanded downtime — was not challenged, and the company had given employees roughly a week to raise concerns before implementation. The arbitrator noted that while management acted quickly and was “to some extent scrambling,” the collective agreement imposed no mandatory consultation procedure for shift changes.
Past practice and estoppel
The arbitrator found insufficient evidence to support the union’s estoppel argument. The 2020 grievance resolves were limited on their face to weekend shift vacancies and could not be extended to general shift assignments. The union had attempted to secure broader recognition during those earlier settlement discussions and was unsuccessful.
The arbitrator also accepted the company’s position that the 2024 reassignments did not constitute filling vacancies, which arise from employee departures, terminations or absences rather than reorganization of existing shifts.
“At best seniority was part of the mix in Company decision-making, subject to case-by-case determination by management,” the arbitrator found. “Certainly, the Union held a sincere belief that senior employees were entitled to their preferences in shift assignment but as the Company argued, belief alone cannot create a legal right.”
The grievances were denied.
Counsel for Plaintiff
Sarbjit Deepak, for United Steelworkers, Local 1-2017
Counsel for Defendant
Andrew Nicholl, for Tolko Industries Ltd., Lakeview Division
Decision Maker
Arne Peltz, arbitrator.
For more information, see Tolko Industries Ltd., Lakeview Division v United Steelworkers, Local 1-2O17, 2026 CanLII 49201 (BC LA).
