Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca

Buddha: Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it,unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

Support HEU Members in an Exorcism of NDP Influence from the HEU Collective Body
Please support the members of the Hospital Employees’ Union who are working to expose corruption and hold HEU President Barb Nederpel and the current leadership accountable.
HEU members’ money — amounting to millions of dollars — has been used to advance NDP party interests rather than to protect workers, causing serious harm to union members and to residents of British Columbia.
At the same time, HEU leadership exempted themselves and approximately 300 union staff members from public health orders, while failing to support — and in many cases remaining silent as — thousands of HEU members were terminated for not complying with those very same orders.
In just one week, this group has raised $8,775 from individual donors. The group initially expected HEU locals to pass motions at local meetings to fund the legal challenge. However, on Monday, HEU Financial Secretary Betty Valenzuela sent an email threatening local executives with serious discipline if they donated money to the challenge, claiming it was against the interests of the union.
This unprecedented, pre-emptive threat by a 77-year-old Financial Secretary earning approximately $250,000 per year against the autonomy of local executives and members is a blatant misrepresentation. The legal challenge is simply asking HEU leadership to provide audited results or any reports from Simply Voting showing that ratification actually passed.
One of the 161 locals was prepared to contribute $4,000 until that email was sent. Following the email, HEU leadership deployed elected officials and staff representatives to attend and police local meetings. It has now been 36 days of complete radio silence from HEU leadership, and the most alarming fact is that even the bargaining committee has never been provided with any report showing that ratification passed.
Even a $10 donation from the public will help send a message.
The lack of meaningful opposition in this province is allowing corruption to grow, as the NDP installs its loyalists in public institutions that are supposed to hold officials accountable.
Please help the members of the Hospital Employees’ Union remove NDP influence from their collective and stop HEU from being used as an ATM. There are many financially secure members in this group for whom $10 or $20 is a small amount, but together it sends a clear message to the NDP that opposition exists — even if it is not currently represented in the Legislature.
https://t.co/T2GKEJIxdK

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@BNederpel @HospitalEmploy2 @Conservative_BC @One_BCHQ @cupenat @CUPEBC @bcfed @Jordan_Keal @TaraArmstrongBC @Dallas_Brodie @RobShaw_BC @RebelNewsOnline @keithbaldrey @VaughnPalmer @bcgeu @paulgfinch @WesternStandard @coast_reporter @bcpoli @bc_perspective @bcndp #HEUBC Request for Removal of Labour Minister Jennifer Whiteside and BCLRB Vice-Chair Andres Barker — Public Confidence in the Labour Relations Board
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>10:04 PM (2 minutes ago)
to premier, Andres, jennifer.whiteside.mla, David.Eby.MLA, Brenda.Bailey.MLA, Brittny.Anderson.MLA, George.Anderson.MLA, Rohini.Arora.MLA, Lisa.Beare.MLA, Garry.Begg.MLA, Jennifer.Blatherwick.MLA, Christine.Boyle.MLA, Jagrup.Brar.MLA, s.chandraherbert.mla, Susie.Chant.MLA, Paul.Choi.MLA, Raj.Chouhan.MLA, George.Chow.MLA, Tamara.Davidson.MLA, Sunita.Dhir.MLA, Adrian.Dix.MLA, Mable.Elmore.MLA, Mike.Farnworth.MLA, Diana.Gibson.MLA, Rick.Glumac.MLA, EMCR.Minister, Stephanie.Higginson.MLA, Ravi.Kahlon.MLA, Anne.Kang.MLA, Nina.Krieger.MLA, Dana.Lajeunesse.MLA, Grace.Lore.MLA, https://t.co/cYJoLFt5nA.MLA, Sheila.Malcolmson.mla, Steve.Morissette.MLA, Randene.Neill.MLA, Josie.Osborne.MLA, Ravi.Parmar.MLA, Joan.Phillip.MLA, Lana.Popham.MLA, Darlene.Rotchford.MLA, Janet.Routledge.mla, Harwinder.Sandhu.MLA, Niki.Sharma.MLA, Jessie.Sunner.MLA, Debra.Toporowski.MLA, Jodie.Wickens.MLA, Terry.Yung.MLA, Dallas.Brodie.MLA, Tara, Jordan.Kealy.MLA, Jeremy.Valeriote.MLA, Rob.Botterell.MLA, John.Rustad.MLA, Bryan, Bruce.Banman.MLA, Harman.Bhangu.MLA, Tony.Luck.MLA, Rosalyn.Bird.MLA, Lynne, Amelia.Boultbee.MLA, Hon.Chan.MLA, Brent.Chapman.MLA, Sheldon.Clare.MLA, Pete.Davis.MLA, https://t.co/6wFvXlj1rx.MLA, Gavin.Dew.MLA, Mandeep.Dhaliwal.MLA, Lorne, Kiel.Giddens.MLA, Reann.Gasper.MLA, Elenore.Sturko.MLA, Anna, trevor.halford.MLA, Sharon.hartwell.MLA, Linda.Hepner.MLA, Kristina.Loewen.MLA, Steve.Kooner.MLA, Heather.Maahs.MLA, Macklin.McCall.MLA, Scott.McInnis.MLA, Peter.Milobar.MLA, Lawrence.Mok.MLA, Korky.Neufeld.MLA, Larry.Neufeld.MLA, Jody.Toor.MLA, Ian, Claire.Rattee.MLA, Ward.Stamer.MLA, Misty.VanPopta.MLA, Aaliya.Warbus.MLA, Teresa.Wat.MLA, David.Williams.MLA, Donegal.Wilson.MLA
Dear Premier Eby and all BC MLAs,
I am writing to you, with all Members of the Legislative Assembly copied, to formally request that your government address what I believe are serious issues concerning conflict of interest, political independence and public confidence in British Columbia's labour-relations system.
I am asking for two specific actions.
First, I ask that Jennifer Whiteside be removed from her position as Minister of Labour.
As you are well aware, before entering provincial politics, Jennifer Whiteside held the number-two position at the Hospital Employees' Union as its Secretary-Business Manager.
That history becomes particularly concerning to me because my Labour Relations Board applications involved HEU itself.
In my case, Najeeb Hassan had been assigned to my applications since November 2024. After my February 28, 2025 reply submissions, I was informed on March 11, 2025 that Vice-Chair Andres Barker would be replacing Mr. Hassan.
As I explained in my August 5 email to the Labour Relations Board, two days before I was notified of that change, my local chair told me that he had met HEU President Barb Nederpel at a shopping mall in a meeting arranged through a third party. According to him, Ms. Nederpel told him: "Jessie thinks he's going to win. Just wait and see."
Two days later, I was informed that Mr. Barker was replacing Mr. Hassan.
I am not presenting that sequence as proof of what occurred behind closed doors. I am saying that it creates questions that deserve an independent answer. I want to know who made the decision to replace Mr. Hassan, why it was made, whether anyone outside the BCLRB communicated with anyone concerning my applications, and whether Minister Whiteside, her office, HEU or anyone associated with HEU had any involvement whatsoever.
The appearance of conflict becomes even more serious when considering Ms. Whiteside's long standing relationship with HEU and the fact that HEU President Barb Nederpel sits on the BC NDP Provincial Executive.
How is an ordinary union member supposed to look at these relationships and have confidence that there is no conflict of interest when that member brings a complaint against HEU?
Second, I am asking your government to remove Vice-Chair Andres Barker from the British Columbia Labour Relations Board when his current appointment permits, or otherwise decline to reappoint him.
Mr. Barker was appointed to the Board in 2018, during the government in which you served as Attorney General.
As far as I know, a Vice-Chair position at the Labour Relations Board is not intended to be a lifetime appointment. There are thousands of qualified lawyers in British Columbia capable of serving on this tribunal.
Eight years is long enough.
Rotation matters. Institutional independence matters. The appearance of independence matters.
I have reviewed Mr. Barker's decisions involving individual union members proceeding against their unions, and my review produced a record that I characterize as approximately 45–0 in favour of unions over individual members. If the government or the BCLRB disputes my methodology or that number, I invite you to provide the complete record and demonstrate where I am wrong.
A record like that deserves scrutiny, not dismissal.
Based on my experience with Mr. Barker, the circumstances surrounding his assignment to my case, and my review of his decisions, he has earned what I believe is a reputation as a “BCNDP hack” rather than an independent adjudicator. That is my opinion, but it is an opinion formed from the record I have reviewed and my own direct experience before the Board.
If the government believes that characterization is unfair, then provide the complete record, explain the circumstances surrounding his assignment to my applications, and demonstrate why union members should have confidence in his continued appointment.
Since 2017, appointments to this Board have been made under BC NDP governments. Regardless of whether every individual appointment is legally proper, public confidence requires more than legality. A tribunal must also be seen as genuinely independent of the government, unions, employers and other institutional interests appearing before it.
I have attached my August 5, 2026 email to Mr. Barker and the other Vice-Chairs of the Labour Relations Board, setting out my personal experience with the BCLRB and why I have lost confidence in the institution.
That letter was not written lightly.
I have represented workers since 1987 through OTEU, HEU, BCGEU and PIPSC. I have served locally, attended conventions, sat on bargaining committees and consistently believed that members' interests must come before the interests of the institution representing them. As I explained in my August 5 letter, when my applications reached the Labour Relations Board, I expected an independent tribunal to carefully examine whether I had received fair representation. I do not believe that happened.
The Labour Relations Board is effectively the last place union members can turn when they believe their own union has failed to represent them fairly.
If members cannot have confidence in that institution, where exactly are they supposed to go?
Based on my experience and my review of Mr. Barker's record, either meaningful changes need to occur at the BCLRB or perhaps it should be renamed "B.C.'s House of Horrors for Union Members."
That language is deliberately strong because the consequences are real. These aren't academic exercises. BCLRB decisions can determine people's livelihoods, careers and ability to obtain meaningful recourse against organizations funded by their own union dues.
My August 5 letter ended with a request to every Vice-Chair of the Board: decide every application independently, on its own merits, regardless of who the parties are or what the political consequences may be. I said then that for many workers, the Board is the last place they look for justice.
I am now making a similar request directly to you as Premier.
I ask your government to:
Remove Jennifer Whiteside as Minister of Labour because I believe her previous senior leadership position with HEU and the relationships surrounding HEU create an unacceptable appearance of conflict when her ministry has responsibility for the labour-relations system.
Provide a complete explanation of why Najeeb Hassan was replaced by Andres Barker on my BCLRB applications in March 2025, including who authorized the change and whether there were any communications with HEU, Minister Whiteside, her ministry, the Premier's Office or any other outside party concerning my applications.
Remove Mr. Barker when legally permissible or decline to reappoint him, and introduce meaningful rotation of Vice-Chairs so that the same individuals do not remain in these enormously powerful positions indefinitely.
Review the independence and appointment structure of the BCLRB and determine whether changes are necessary to restore confidence among ordinary union members—not simply unions, employers and the lawyers who regularly appear before it.
Premier Eby, this is ultimately about something larger than Jessie Bains, Jennifer Whiteside, Andres Barker or HEU.
It is about whether an ordinary union member can challenge a powerful union, appear before a government-appointed tribunal and genuinely believe that the outcome will be determined by the evidence and the law—not relationships, politics or institutional loyalties.
I no longer have that confidence.
I am asking you to demonstrate why British Columbia's union members should.
I request a substantive written response addressing these questions rather than a referral to the Labour Relations Board or a generic acknowledgement from government correspondence staff.
I have copied all BC MLAs because the independence of an administrative tribunal responsible for protecting the rights of hundreds of thousands of unionized workers should concern every elected member of the Legislature, regardless of political party.
For anyone interested in reviewing the record, the following documents are available under Tab 2 at https://t.co/S7G0a2QLtV:
February 7, 2025 – HEU's Response
February 28, 2025 – Jessie Bains' Reply Submissions
April 30, 2025 – Vice-Chair Andres Barker's Decision
May 5, 2025 – Application for Leave to Reconsider
June 18, 2025 – Decision on the Application for Leave to Reconsider
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains
Attachment:
Reflection Following the Conclusion of My Litigation – BCLRB, August 5, 2026

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES’ UNION — FROM SERVING THE MEMBERS TO SERVING THEMSELVES
THE BEAST THAT FEEDS ITSELF
HEU members need to start asking a very uncomfortable question:
How much of your union dues is actually going toward representing you—and how much is going toward maintaining the organization that collects them?
According to HEU’s 2024 audited financial statements, approximately $35 million was spent on salaries alone, compared with approximately $66.6 million in dues revenue.
That means salaries alone consumed more than half of the dues collected—before benefits and many other staffing costs are even considered.
And then look at what HEU staff and leadership receive.
• Barb Nederpel — HEU President
• Betty Valenzuela — Financial Secretary
• Lynn Bueckert — Secretary-Business Manager
I have been told by former Provincial Executive members that all three receive more than $250,000 annually in salary and compensation.
Despite repeated written requests since 2024, HEU leadership has refused to provide members with the actual total compensation figures.
Why?
If these figures are reasonable, disclose them.
Show members the final total compensation.
WHAT HEU STAFF RECEIVE
The wage, allowance and benefit figures below come directly from the HEU/PEA-HESU Staff Collective Agreement. Don't take my word for it—read it yourself:
HEU/PEA-HESU 2024–2027 Collective Agreement:
https://t.co/H7AkI95zSJ
Not a single HEU staff member among more than 300 employees appears to earn less than approximately $75,000 annually based on the wage classifications.
One of the lowest-paying classifications is:
Assistant Mail Room Clerk — $38.07/hour
Meanwhile:
• Staff Representatives — $72.42/hour
• Director — $73.74/hour
• Co-Coordinator — $81.11/hour
• President & Financial Secretary — $85.16/hour
That means the people representing members in hearings where a member's livelihood may be at stake can earn more than $72 an hour.
No university degree is required for the Staff Representative position, and many do not have one.
Yet members are expected to place their careers in their hands.
And then there is what I call HEU's power couple: Chris Dorais, Coordinator of Public Sector Servicing, and his spouse Ruby (Kandola) Dorais, a Staff Representative. Based on the compensation figures I have been provided, I believe their combined annual income and compensation exceeds $400,000.
AND THE PERKS KEEP COMING
These figures also come from the staff collective agreement:
• Approximately $1,300 annual clothing allowance, increasing with CPI for staff and elected officials.
• Vehicle provisions covering personal and business use.
• Gas paid under the applicable vehicle provisions.
• Up to $1,000 for winter tires every three years.
• $55 per month for vehicle maintenance.
• Work-from-home provisions allowing up to 50% remote work.
And then look at the wage increases negotiated in that same agreement:
HEU STAFF CONTRACT
• April 1, 2024: $1.00/hour plus 6.75%, retroactive
• April 1, 2025: 4.25%
• April 1, 2026: 3.00%
Again, these aren't numbers I invented. They come from the collective agreement covering HEU's own staff. Read it yourself.
This is what HEU staff received from a leadership headed by Barb Nederpel and Betty Valenzuela.
And this raises what I believe is an obvious conflict-of-interest question.
If the salaries and benefits of senior elected officials are tied to staff wage classifications, then when staff wages increase, senior leadership benefits as well.
In what universe is that not something members should be questioning?
BUT WHAT ARE MEMBERS GETTING IN RETURN?
None of this would bother me nearly as much if HEU members were receiving not even excellent representation—but simply fair representation.
Too often, I believe they are not.
The health-care workers affected by BC's COVID-19 vaccination requirement are a perfect example.
HEU had political connections most unions could only dream of:
• Barb Nederpel — HEU President and member of the BC NDP Provincial Executive.
• Bal Sandhu — HEU Provincial Executive member and spouse of BC NDP MLA Harwinder Sandhu.
• Jennifer Whiteside — former HEU Secretary-Business Manager who became a BC NDP cabinet minister.
• Jessie Sunner — former member of HEU's Legal Department who became a BC NDP MLA and cabinet minister.
HEU has also spent millions supporting the BC NDP politically.
Yet as other provinces began changing course in 2022, where was HEU's public campaign asking the BC government to reconsider its health-care worker vaccination requirement and bring its own members back to work?
At the same time, HEU was publicly advocating for solutions to staffing shortages, including recruitment of internationally educated health-care workers.
If there was ever a time to use HEU's political relationships to fight for its own members, this was it.
Instead, many long-time members remained suspended and were ultimately terminated.
This isn't about being pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine. It's about representation.
If a union will not publicly fight for members when their livelihoods are on the line, what exactly are members paying for?
That brings us right back to the numbers:
$66.6 million in dues. Approximately $35 million in salaries alone.
Members pay for the wages, benefits, vehicles, allowances, offices and political spending.
So perhaps it's time HEU leadership answered one simple question:
WHAT ARE THE MEMBERS GETTING IN RETURN?
A union is supposed to serve its members.
The members are not supposed to exist to feed the beast.

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@BNederpel @HospitalEmploy2 @bcgeu @paulgfinch @cupenat @CUPEBC @RobShaw_BC @bcndp @Conservative_BC @CHEK_News @bcfed @BCNursesUnion @One_BCHQ @TaraArmstrongBC @Jordan_Keal @DrKindyMLA @keithbaldrey @DreaHumphrey @OdessaOrlewicz @bcndp @Fightingmandate @bcpsef @bcpoli #HEUBC #HEU HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES’ UNION — FROM SERVING THE MEMBERS TO SERVING THEMSELVES
THE BEAST THAT FEEDS ITSELF
HEU members need to start asking a very uncomfortable question:
How much of your union dues is actually going toward representing you—and how much is going toward maintaining the organization that collects them?
According to HEU’s 2024 audited financial statements, approximately $35 million was spent on salaries alone, compared with approximately $66.6 million in dues revenue.
That means salaries alone consumed more than half of the dues collected—before benefits and many other staffing costs are even considered.
And then look at what HEU staff and leadership receive.
• Barb Nederpel — HEU President
• Betty Valenzuela — Financial Secretary
• Lynn Bueckert — Secretary-Business Manager
I have been told by former Provincial Executive members that all three receive more than $250,000 annually in salary and compensation.
Despite repeated written requests since 2024, HEU leadership has refused to provide members with the actual total compensation figures.
Why?
If these figures are reasonable, disclose them.
Show members the final total compensation.
WHAT HEU STAFF RECEIVE
The wage, allowance and benefit figures below come directly from the HEU/PEA-HESU Staff Collective Agreement. Don't take my word for it—read it yourself:
HEU/PEA-HESU 2024–2027 Collective Agreement:
https://t.co/H7AkI95zSJ
Not a single HEU staff member among more than 300 employees appears to earn less than approximately $75,000 annually based on the wage classifications.
One of the lowest-paying classifications is:
Assistant Mail Room Clerk — $38.07/hour
Meanwhile:
• Staff Representatives — $72.42/hour
• Director — $73.74/hour
• Co-Coordinator — $81.11/hour
• President & Financial Secretary — $85.16/hour
That means the people representing members in hearings where a member's livelihood may be at stake can earn more than $72 an hour.
No university degree is required for the Staff Representative position, and many do not have one.
Yet members are expected to place their careers in their hands.
And then there is what I call HEU's power couple: Chris Dorais, Coordinator of Public Sector Servicing, and his spouse Ruby (Kandola) Dorais, a Staff Representative. Based on the compensation figures I have been provided, I believe their combined annual income and compensation exceeds $400,000.
AND THE PERKS KEEP COMING
These figures also come from the staff collective agreement:
• Approximately $1,300 annual clothing allowance, increasing with CPI for staff and elected officials.
• Vehicle provisions covering personal and business use.
• Gas paid under the applicable vehicle provisions.
• Up to $1,000 for winter tires every three years.
• $55 per month for vehicle maintenance.
• Work-from-home provisions allowing up to 50% remote work.
And then look at the wage increases negotiated in that same agreement:
HEU STAFF CONTRACT
• April 1, 2024: $1.00/hour plus 6.75%, retroactive
• April 1, 2025: 4.25%
• April 1, 2026: 3.00%
Again, these aren't numbers I invented. They come from the collective agreement covering HEU's own staff. Read it yourself.
This is what HEU staff received from a leadership headed by Barb Nederpel and Betty Valenzuela.
And this raises what I believe is an obvious conflict-of-interest question.
If the salaries and benefits of senior elected officials are tied to staff wage classifications, then when staff wages increase, senior leadership benefits as well.
In what universe is that not something members should be questioning?
BUT WHAT ARE MEMBERS GETTING IN RETURN?
None of this would bother me nearly as much if HEU members were receiving not even excellent representation—but simply fair representation.
Too often, I believe they are not.
The health-care workers affected by BC's COVID-19 vaccination requirement are a perfect example.
HEU had political connections most unions could only dream of:
• Barb Nederpel — HEU President and member of the BC NDP Provincial Executive.
• Bal Sandhu — HEU Provincial Executive member and spouse of BC NDP MLA Harwinder Sandhu.
• Jennifer Whiteside — former HEU Secretary-Business Manager who became a BC NDP cabinet minister.
• Jessie Sunner — former member of HEU's Legal Department who became a BC NDP MLA and cabinet minister.
HEU has also spent millions supporting the BC NDP politically.
Yet as other provinces began changing course in 2022, where was HEU's public campaign asking the BC government to reconsider its health-care worker vaccination requirement and bring its own members back to work?
At the same time, HEU was publicly advocating for solutions to staffing shortages, including recruitment of internationally educated health-care workers.
If there was ever a time to use HEU's political relationships to fight for its own members, this was it.
Instead, many long-time members remained suspended and were ultimately terminated.
This isn't about being pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine. It's about representation.
If a union will not publicly fight for members when their livelihoods are on the line, what exactly are members paying for?
That brings us right back to the numbers:
$66.6 million in dues. Approximately $35 million in salaries alone.
Members pay for the wages, benefits, vehicles, allowances, offices and political spending.
So perhaps it's time HEU leadership answered one simple question:
WHAT ARE THE MEMBERS GETTING IN RETURN?
A union is supposed to serve its members.
The members are not supposed to exist to feed the beast.

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@BNederpel @HospitalEmploy2 @cupenat @CUPEBC @bcgeu @bcfed @paulgfinch I continue making these posts because they are having an impact. Google “Barb Nederpel” and https://t.co/19Drg7sjth shows up #4 in the search results. Google “Barb Nederpel salary” and https://t.co/19Drg7sjth comes up #1. #HEUBC #heu

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@BNederpel @HospitalEmploy2 @bcgeu @cupenat @CUPEBC @paulgfinch @bcfed @Conservative_BC @bcndp @BCNursesUnion @RobShaw_BC @DrKindyMLA @keithbaldrey @DreaHumphrey @bcpoli @One_BCHQ @TaraArmstrongBC @Jordan_Keal @ShareawareCdn #HEUBC #bcpoli 13 OF MANY REASONS HEU NEEDS A NEW PRESIDENT
At the November convention, delegates will have an important decision to make about the future leadership of HEU.
These are only 13 of the many reasons members and delegates should be asking whether Barb Nederpel has earned another term as President.
These are not personality disputes. They are questions about transparency, conflicts of interest, financial accountability, election integrity, representation, and the concentration of power at the top of our union.
Before voting, delegates should ask Barb to answer them.
1. BC NDP PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE
Barb sits on the BC NDP Provincial Executive, yet this political position is not disclosed in her official HEU biography, was not disclosed at the last HEU convention, and, to my knowledge, has not been disclosed in her re-election material for HEU President.
Why not?
This becomes even more important when you consider HEU's financial support for the BC NDP. During the last provincial election alone, HEU spent $470,401 on advertising supporting the NDP, and HEU has spent millions on political activities and support since Barb was first elected President in 2018.
HEU represents tens of thousands of workers whose employer is ultimately the provincial government. When members' dues are being used to support the governing political party while the President simultaneously sits on that party's Provincial Executive, members have every right to know about that relationship.
This isn't about whether HEU should participate in politics. It's about disclosure and accountability. If our President holds a leadership position in the political party receiving substantial support from our union, why isn't that relationship prominently disclosed to HEU members?
2. COMMUNITY SAVINGS CREDIT UNION
Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert are directors of Community Savings Credit Union.
In 2025, HEU invested approximately $2 million of members' money with Community Savings, while HEU has also directed locals and union business toward the credit union.
In May 2024, Community Savings changed its bylaws regarding preferred shares(COMMISSION) available to directors, including provisions connected to business brought to the credit union.
Why isn't Barb's directorship disclosed in her official HEU biography?
There may be no immediate financial conflict today, but that doesn't eliminate the concern. If preferred shares connected to business brought to the credit union can be awarded or received after a director has left HEU, then members have every right to ask whether decisions made while holding office could potentially result in a financial benefit later.
Members deserve a complete explanation of this relationship, the $2 million investment, any current or future benefits available to directors, and what conflict-of-interest safeguards were put in place.
Transparency isn't only about whether someone benefits today. It's also about whether decisions made today could create a personal benefit tomorrow.
3. WAGE RESTORATION — “THE BIG LIE”
HEU members have been hearing about wage restoration for years.
Barb and the BC NDP have both been in positions of power since 2017, yet members who suffered the original 15% wage rollback are still waiting for meaningful restoration.
Instead, wage restoration has repeatedly been used to make settlements sound better than the actual general wage increases members received.
Now we are being told about another $60 million for wage restoration. But that money is being spread across a union of approximately 70,000 members and may include classifications that receive increases through the latest round of bargaining, while many of the workers who actually suffered the original rollback continue to wait.
That raises the most important question:
When will the members who actually suffered the 15% rollback finally receive the wage restoration they were promised?
After years of promises, announcements and political connections, members should judge wage restoration by what actually appears on their paycheques—not by another headline or another promise.
4. PRESIDENTIAL COMPENSATION
Former Provincial Executive members have reported that Barb's annual salary and total compensation exceed $250,000.
Despite repeated requests, members have not been provided her official T4 compensation figures for the last three years.
Why not simply disclose them?
HEU members pay the bills. They should know exactly what their elected President receives.
5. THE REPORTED 28% INCREASE
Members have also been told that Barb's compensation increased by approximately 28% in 2025.
Despite repeated requests, the documentation necessary to verify the actual increase has not been provided.
If that figure is wrong, release the records and correct it.
6. THE RATIFICATION VOTE CHANGED FROM 107 TO 108 LOCALS
During the December 2025 ratification vote, serious questions arose about how ballots were distributed, including why some members received one ballot, some received two, and others received none.
On December 19, members were initially told that approximately 54% voted YES and 107 locals voted in favour.
After a member pointed out that 107 of 161 locals did not reach the required two-thirds threshold, the reported number changed on December 22 to 108 locals voting in favour.
There was no new vote.
Delegates should ask exactly what changed between December 19 and December 22 and demand the records necessary to independently verify the result.
7. WHY HAVEN'T MEMBERS RECEIVED THE COMPLETE VOTING RECORDS?
Members raised more than $20,000 to pursue transparency through the courts.
On April 2, 2026, a court order was obtained in VLC-S-S-261188 concerning disclosure by Simply Voting of information relating to the December 19 ratification vote.
Why should members ever have had to raise more than $20,000 and go to court to obtain transparency over their own union vote?
A court order should never be required for election transparency.
To make matters worse, HEU leadership is still fighting the court action and is now asking the court to dismiss the case.
8. MANDATORY VACCINATION AND HEU REPRESENTATION
While thousands of healthcare workers faced termination, resignation, early retirement, career changes, or leaving the province because of BC's vaccination requirements, HEU's own leadership and staff were not working under the same healthcare-worker vaccination order.
HEU did not take a single grievance involving these terminations through to full arbitration.
In early 2022, HEU was campaigning to recruit healthcare workers from outside Canada. Yet at the same time, HEU did not campaign to bring its own suspended healthcare workers back to work, even as other provinces began welcoming their suspended healthcare workers back.
Why was HEU looking outside Canada for healthcare workers while not publicly fighting to bring its own suspended members back to work?
Members deserve a complete accounting of what their union did—and did not do—for these workers.
9. THE 2025 CUPE NATIONAL CONVENTION
In 2025, Barb lost her position as Regional Vice-President on the CUPE National Executive Board.
During the swearing-in of the successful candidate, Barb and HEU delegates were seen turning their backs on the winning candidate.
Whatever disagreements existed during the election, delegates should ask whether that conduct represented the professionalism and solidarity expected from the President of HEU.
10. WHO INVESTIGATES THE PEOPLE AT THE TOP?
At the previous HEU convention, constitutional changes created a new ethics process.
The result is that complaints involving the President and Provincial Executive can now be investigated through an Ethics Commissioner whose contractual relationship ultimately depends upon the organization governed by those same officials.
Since the change, numerous serious complaints have been submitted without findings of wrongdoing against Barb.
That raises a basic governance question:
Who independently holds the President accountable when the accountability system itself ultimately answers to the leadership being investigated?
HEU had an Article 19 process that members had used for decades. Delegates should examine whether the new system strengthened independent accountability—or weakened it.
11. WHY IS HEU'S STRIKE FUND ONLY ABOUT $27 MILLION?
HEU hasn't had a full strike since 2004.
By the end of 2024, HEU's strike fund stood at approximately $27.3 million, while BCGEU's defence fund exceeded $132 million, even after significant real-estate investments.
HEU members pay approximately 2.15% of gross earnings in dues.
After more than two decades without a full strike, delegates should be asking why HEU hasn't accumulated a substantially larger strike fund and exactly where members' dues have gone.
HEU has invested heavily in politics, its leadership, and its staff.
Unfortunately, too many members feel the one group that has been left behind is HEU's own membership.
12. WHERE DID THE COVID SAVINGS GO?
During the pandemic, meetings moved online, travel and per diems dropped sharply, and offices were closed.
Other unions invested those savings into lasting assets. BCGEU, for example, bought real estate in Metrotown and built a residential tower that is now leased to BC Housing.
What did HEU members get?
Where did HEU's COVID-era savings go, and what lasting assets were created for the members whose dues paid for everything?
13. THE 2024 CONVENTION GROUP CHAT
During the last HEU convention, Barb participated in a private group chat involving supporters while convention elections were underway.
The chat included discussions surrounding candidates and the election of Barb and members of her team while delegates were voting.
The complete chat has been published on https://t.co/QooQ8VI56d.
Don't take my word for it. Delegates should read the complete chat themselves and decide whether this is how they expect an incumbent President and leadership team to conduct themselves during convention elections.
THE BOTTOM LINE
These are only 13 of many reasons delegates should demand change.
Read the documents. Ask the questions. Demand the records.
If anything here is factually wrong, Barb should identify it and release the records that prove it.
HEU belongs to its members—not its President, its staff, or any political party.
At this convention, delegates have a choice:
More of the same—or new leadership that puts members first.
And on a much smaller note, even Barb's official HEU bio raises a transparency question. The photo on the HEU website appears to be decades old.
After all these years, perhaps it's time for a current picture too.
Will the real Barb Nederpel please stand up?
Please save, print, copy, and share this. It can be provided directly to delegates at the HEU convention before they cast their votes.

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@bcfed @CUPEBC @cupenat @bcndp @Conservative_BC @One_BCHQ @TaraArmstrongBC @HospEmpUnion @BNederpel @paulgfinch @bcgeu @RobShaw_BC @BCNursesUnion @bcpoli @TepperBryan A Public Record of My Experience with HEU and the Labour Relations Board
Reflection Following the Conclusion of My Litigation - BCLRB
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>1:53 AM (36 minutes ago)
to Andres, Jennifer, LRB, Jennifer, Kirby, Ivo, Najeeb, Jonathan.Hanvelt, Stephanie, Rene-John.Nicolas, Kaity.Cooper, Andrew.Nathan, Kas.Pavanantharajah, Donald.Richards, Bobby.Sangha, Sherry.Shir, Matthew.Sutcliffe, paul.todd, Jennifer.Whiteside.MLA

Dear Mr. Barker,
CC: British Columbia Labour Relations Board

Now that my litigation has concluded, I am writing to you one final time. I am not seeking anything from you.

My purpose is simply to put my thoughts in writing so they become part of the record. After this, I leave the matter to your conscience.

I have often wondered where to begin, and I always return to April 30, 2025.

Most people would assume the most devastating day of my life was March 4, 2024, when my employment with PHSA ended. It wasn't. The decision that affected my life most was yours, dismissing my Labour Relations Board applications.

I expected the union to defend itself, and I expected political considerations to shape how HEU responded, because its leadership knew me personally and viewed me as a critic. None of that surprised me. What surprised me was the Labour Relations Board.

My concerns about the appearance of independence arose before you rendered your decision.

You were appointed to the Labour Relations Board in 2018 during the government in which the current Premier, David Eby, served as Attorney General. HEU President Barb Nederpel sits on the BC NDP Provincial Executive. Jennifer Whiteside, the current Minister of Labour, served as HEU's Secretary-Business Manager before entering provincial politics. I also learned that you had completed your articling year with the BCGEU.

I had previously been a BCGEU member, and in a significant grievance I was represented by Rene-John Nicolas, now a Vice-Chair of this Board.

I recognize that professional background alone does not determine impartiality. Taken together, however, these facts left me concerned about the appearance of independence in my case, and for that reason I asked you to recuse yourself.

You declined. I also asked that you provide your reasons in writing before deciding my applications.

That request was refused, and the reasons followed only after the decisions had been rendered—by which point the issue was settled and any opportunity for me to address your concerns had passed. I still do not understand what purpose those reasons served at that stage.

Your responsibility was not to protect the union or to validate its position. It was to assess my applications independently, on their merits. From my perspective, they were dismissed with remarkable speed and without meaningful consideration of the issues I had raised.

Following my February 28, 2025 reply submissions, I believed I had answered the union's arguments.

On Sunday, March 9, 2025, my local chair told me he had just met Barb Nederpel at a shopping mall, in a meeting arranged through a third party. According to him, she said, "Jessie thinks he's going to win. Just wait and see."

Two days later, on March 11, 2025, I received an email advising me that you would be replacing Najeeb Hassan, who had been assigned to my applications since November 2024.

I have never forgotten that sequence of events.
Whether it was confidence, coincidence, or something else, it has stayed with me ever since.

What followed is why I will never forget your decision, whether or not you remember my file. It did not simply end a legal proceeding. It ended a career I had spent decades building.

I have represented workers since 1987, serving as a union representative with OTEU, HEU, BCGEU, and PIPSC. I served locally, attended conventions, sat on five bargaining committees, and consistently put members' interests ahead of my own. As a BCGEU member, approximately 450 members elected me to the bargaining committee with the highest number of votes because they trusted me to represent them fairly.

One experience has stayed with me throughout my career. In 2020, a member who had previously filed a complaint against me asked me to represent him when he was facing termination. He knew I would set personal differences aside because someone's livelihood was at stake. That, to me, is what union representation means.

When I returned to HEU in September 2021 as a casual warehouse attendant at PHSA, I believed those same principles applied.

Instead, in March 2024, I was terminated because of a grievance against PHSA Human Resources as a department—not against any individual—which PHSA alleged had been filed in bad faith. I did not file that grievance. The union investigated the matter, decided to file it, owned it throughout the process, and settled it without my consent, explaining that the grievance belonged to the union and not to me. When everything went wrong, I was left to bear the consequences alone. The failure was not mine, but I paid the price for it.

In more than three decades of union involvement, I had never heard of anyone being terminated for filing a grievance.

When my applications reached the Labour Relations Board, I believed an independent tribunal would carefully examine whether I had received fair representation. I do not believe that happened.

The consequences did not stop with me. My wife returned to work while caring for my 100-year-old mother and her own 85-year-old mother. My son was affected. So was every plan our family had made for the future.

I had remained off social media until November 2024 because I valued my privacy. I eventually reached the conclusion that if HEU could do this to someone with decades of union experience, an ordinary member had little chance of holding the union accountable. That is what motivated me to create HEUBC – Uncensored and http://HEUBC. ca, so members would have a place to share information, ask questions, and hold their leadership to account. I knew from the beginning that I was unlikely to succeed in court. That was never really the point. My objective was a permanent public record—every court filing, every letter, every Freedom of Information request, and every public post leaves a digital footprint that future members can read and judge for themselves.

My concern has never been confined to my own circumstances. It is about whether members can expect an independent hearing when they bring legitimate complaints before the Labour Relations Board. The Board's authority rests on public confidence that every application will be decided fairly, independently, and solely on its merits. Once people begin to believe outcomes are predetermined, confidence in the institution itself is damaged.

Only you know whether you gave my applications the careful and independent consideration they deserved.

I cannot change what happened. Neither can you. But I hope you will reflect on the responsibility carried by every vice-chair. Behind every file number is a person, a family, a career, and years of work that a single decision can profoundly affect.

Throughout my life, I have learned that every action has consequences. Like everyone else, I have made mistakes and have had to live with them, and those experiences taught me to think carefully about decisions that affect another person's life.

I also believe we all live under the same universal rules. Courts and tribunals may have the final legal word, but I do not believe they have the final word in life. Every decision that profoundly affects another person is ultimately judged by a higher standard—one where the blindfold is truly worn.

That leaves me with one question: Is career success ever worth destroying another person's livelihood?

For anyone interested in reviewing the record, the following documents are available under Tab 2 at http://www.HEUBC. ca:
February 7, 2025 – HEU's Response
February 28, 2025 – Jessie Bains' Reply Submissions
April 30, 2025 – Vice-Chair Andres Barker's Decision
May 5, 2025 – Application for Leave to Reconsider
June 18, 2025 – Decision on the Application for Leave to Reconsider

I encourage readers to examine the record and reach their own conclusions.

To the other members of the Labour Relations Board copied on this email, my only request is this: continue to decide every application independently, on its own merits, regardless of who the parties are or what the political consequences may be. For many workers, this Board is the last place they look for justice. I hope every applicant receives the independent consideration that I believe I did not.

Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@OdessaOrlewicz A Simple Question: What Science Did BC Have That No Other Province Had?
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>1:20 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Anna
Dear Dr. Anna Kindy, MLA
Official Opposition Critic for Health
CC: All Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
I am writing to you as the Official Opposition Critic for Health, and I am asking you to make one thing a priority during the fall session of the Legislature: to demand that Dr. Bonnie Henry answer one very simple question that every British Columbian deserves answered.
Let me be clear at the outset. This has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I am neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine. This is about one decision and the accountability owed for it.
The question is this:
What science did Dr. Bonnie Henry and BC Public Health have in their possession that no other public health officials in Canada had—science that justified keeping British Columbia's Public Health Orders in place for over four years?
BC did not lift its Public Health Orders until July 2024—more than 28 months after every other province in Canada. Prince Edward Island was the second-last province to lift its Public Health Orders, in March 2022. Twenty-eight months. No other jurisdiction in Canada came close.
The answer matters because I believe this single decision is the root cause of British Columbia's shortage of healthcare workers. During those additional 28 months, thousands of health care workers were terminated, changed careers, took early retirement, or left BC altogether. Many health care workers from the rest of Canada and around the world also chose not to come here.
The Public Health Orders were put in place for one reason: to stop the spread of COVID-19. When science confirmed in late 2021 and early 2022 that vaccination did not prevent transmission, the rest of Canada lifted its Public Health Orders, brought health care workers back, and—like much of the rest of the world—moved on.
BC did not.
We can never move forward or resolve any crisis until we understand its root cause.
Dr. Henry should have no difficulty being transparent. She received the Order of Canada and numerous other awards for her work. If the decision to keep the Public Health Orders in place for an additional 28 months was supported by scientific evidence, then she should have no hesitation explaining that evidence to the people of British Columbia.
I am turning to you because the Premier and the BC NDP have ignored my seven requests for an independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic—an inquiry that should not be about vaccine safety, or even whether the Public Health Orders were initially necessary. It should be about why they remained in place for more than four years and who was accountable for that decision.
Despite the silence, I want every MLA receiving this email to know: the dream never dies, just the dreamer. This dream is shared by a very large number of British Columbians.
So I will ask the question that no one in government seems willing to answer:
How can a public health emergency last more than four years with no accountability and no oversight?
It was not only health care workers who suffered. Every resident of this province continues to suffer because many doctors and other health professionals retired or left BC. The result is rotating emergency room closures—not only in rural British Columbia, but in the Lower Mainland as well.
I respectfully ask that you make this question a priority during the fall session and seek an answer from Dr. Bonnie Henry on behalf of all British Columbians.
One question. This fall.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

A Simple Question: What Science Did BC Have That No Other Province Had?
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>1:20 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Anna
Dear Dr. Anna Kindy, MLA
Official Opposition Critic for Health
CC: All Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
I am writing to you as the Official Opposition Critic for Health, and I am asking you to make one thing a priority during the fall session of the Legislature: to demand that Dr. Bonnie Henry answer one very simple question that every British Columbian deserves answered.
Let me be clear at the outset. This has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I am neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine. This is about one decision and the accountability owed for it.
The question is this:
What science did Dr. Bonnie Henry and BC Public Health have in their possession that no other public health officials in Canada had—science that justified keeping British Columbia's Public Health Orders in place for over four years?
BC did not lift its Public Health Orders until July 2024—more than 28 months after every other province in Canada. Prince Edward Island was the second-last province to lift its Public Health Orders, in March 2022. Twenty-eight months. No other jurisdiction in Canada came close.
The answer matters because I believe this single decision is the root cause of British Columbia's shortage of healthcare workers. During those additional 28 months, thousands of health care workers were terminated, changed careers, took early retirement, or left BC altogether. Many health care workers from the rest of Canada and around the world also chose not to come here.
The Public Health Orders were put in place for one reason: to stop the spread of COVID-19. When science confirmed in late 2021 and early 2022 that vaccination did not prevent transmission, the rest of Canada lifted its Public Health Orders, brought health care workers back, and—like much of the rest of the world—moved on.
BC did not.
We can never move forward or resolve any crisis until we understand its root cause.
Dr. Henry should have no difficulty being transparent. She received the Order of Canada and numerous other awards for her work. If the decision to keep the Public Health Orders in place for an additional 28 months was supported by scientific evidence, then she should have no hesitation explaining that evidence to the people of British Columbia.
I am turning to you because the Premier and the BC NDP have ignored my seven requests for an independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic—an inquiry that should not be about vaccine safety, or even whether the Public Health Orders were initially necessary. It should be about why they remained in place for more than four years and who was accountable for that decision.
Despite the silence, I want every MLA receiving this email to know: the dream never dies, just the dreamer. This dream is shared by a very large number of British Columbians.
So I will ask the question that no one in government seems willing to answer:
How can a public health emergency last more than four years with no accountability and no oversight?
It was not only health care workers who suffered. Every resident of this province continues to suffer because many doctors and other health professionals retired or left BC. The result is rotating emergency room closures—not only in rural British Columbia, but in the Lower Mainland as well.
I respectfully ask that you make this question a priority during the fall session and seek an answer from Dr. Bonnie Henry on behalf of all British Columbians.
One question. This fall.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

A Simple Question: What Science Did BC Have That No Other Province Had?
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>1:20 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Anna
Dear Dr. Anna Kindy, MLA
Official Opposition Critic for Health
CC: All Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
I am writing to you as the Official Opposition Critic for Health, and I am asking you to make one thing a priority during the fall session of the Legislature: to demand that Dr. Bonnie Henry answer one very simple question that every British Columbian deserves answered.
Let me be clear at the outset. This has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I am neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine. This is about one decision and the accountability owed for it.
The question is this:
What science did Dr. Bonnie Henry and BC Public Health have in their possession that no other public health officials in Canada had—science that justified keeping British Columbia's Public Health Orders in place for over four years?
BC did not lift its Public Health Orders until July 2024—more than 28 months after every other province in Canada. Prince Edward Island was the second-last province to lift its Public Health Orders, in March 2022. Twenty-eight months. No other jurisdiction in Canada came close.
The answer matters because I believe this single decision is the root cause of British Columbia's shortage of healthcare workers. During those additional 28 months, thousands of health care workers were terminated, changed careers, took early retirement, or left BC altogether. Many health care workers from the rest of Canada and around the world also chose not to come here.
The Public Health Orders were put in place for one reason: to stop the spread of COVID-19. When science confirmed in late 2021 and early 2022 that vaccination did not prevent transmission, the rest of Canada lifted its Public Health Orders, brought health care workers back, and—like much of the rest of the world—moved on.
BC did not.
We can never move forward or resolve any crisis until we understand its root cause.
Dr. Henry should have no difficulty being transparent. She received the Order of Canada and numerous other awards for her work. If the decision to keep the Public Health Orders in place for an additional 28 months was supported by scientific evidence, then she should have no hesitation explaining that evidence to the people of British Columbia.
I am turning to you because the Premier and the BC NDP have ignored my seven requests for an independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic—an inquiry that should not be about vaccine safety, or even whether the Public Health Orders were initially necessary. It should be about why they remained in place for more than four years and who was accountable for that decision.
Despite the silence, I want every MLA receiving this email to know: the dream never dies, just the dreamer. This dream is shared by a very large number of British Columbians.
So I will ask the question that no one in government seems willing to answer:
How can a public health emergency last more than four years with no accountability and no oversight?
It was not only health care workers who suffered. Every resident of this province continues to suffer because many doctors and other health professionals retired or left BC. The result is rotating emergency room closures—not only in rural British Columbia, but in the Lower Mainland as well.
I respectfully ask that you make this question a priority during the fall session and seek an answer from Dr. Bonnie Henry on behalf of all British Columbians.
One question. This fall.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

A Simple Question: What Science Did BC Have That No Other Province Had?
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>1:20 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Anna
Dear Dr. Anna Kindy, MLA
Official Opposition Critic for Health
CC: All Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
I am writing to you as the Official Opposition Critic for Health, and I am asking you to make one thing a priority during the fall session of the Legislature: to demand that Dr. Bonnie Henry answer one very simple question that every British Columbian deserves answered.
Let me be clear at the outset. This has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I am neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine. This is about one decision and the accountability owed for it.
The question is this:
What science did Dr. Bonnie Henry and BC Public Health have in their possession that no other public health officials in Canada had—science that justified keeping British Columbia's Public Health Orders in place for over four years?
BC did not lift its Public Health Orders until July 2024—more than 28 months after every other province in Canada. Prince Edward Island was the second-last province to lift its Public Health Orders, in March 2022. Twenty-eight months. No other jurisdiction in Canada came close.
The answer matters because I believe this single decision is the root cause of British Columbia's shortage of healthcare workers. During those additional 28 months, thousands of health care workers were terminated, changed careers, took early retirement, or left BC altogether. Many health care workers from the rest of Canada and around the world also chose not to come here.
The Public Health Orders were put in place for one reason: to stop the spread of COVID-19. When science confirmed in late 2021 and early 2022 that vaccination did not prevent transmission, the rest of Canada lifted its Public Health Orders, brought health care workers back, and—like much of the rest of the world—moved on.
BC did not.
We can never move forward or resolve any crisis until we understand its root cause.
Dr. Henry should have no difficulty being transparent. She received the Order of Canada and numerous other awards for her work. If the decision to keep the Public Health Orders in place for an additional 28 months was supported by scientific evidence, then she should have no hesitation explaining that evidence to the people of British Columbia.
I am turning to you because the Premier and the BC NDP have ignored my seven requests for an independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic—an inquiry that should not be about vaccine safety, or even whether the Public Health Orders were initially necessary. It should be about why they remained in place for more than four years and who was accountable for that decision.
Despite the silence, I want every MLA receiving this email to know: the dream never dies, just the dreamer. This dream is shared by a very large number of British Columbians.
So I will ask the question that no one in government seems willing to answer:
How can a public health emergency last more than four years with no accountability and no oversight?
It was not only health care workers who suffered. Every resident of this province continues to suffer because many doctors and other health professionals retired or left BC. The result is rotating emergency room closures—not only in rural British Columbia, but in the Lower Mainland as well.
I respectfully ask that you make this question a priority during the fall session and seek an answer from Dr. Bonnie Henry on behalf of all British Columbians.
One question. This fall.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

A Simple Question: What Science Did BC Have That No Other Province Had?
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>1:20 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Anna
Dear Dr. Anna Kindy, MLA
Official Opposition Critic for Health
CC: All Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
I am writing to you as the Official Opposition Critic for Health, and I am asking you to make one thing a priority during the fall session of the Legislature: to demand that Dr. Bonnie Henry answer one very simple question that every British Columbian deserves answered.
Let me be clear at the outset. This has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I am neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine. This is about one decision and the accountability owed for it.
The question is this:
What science did Dr. Bonnie Henry and BC Public Health have in their possession that no other public health officials in Canada had—science that justified keeping British Columbia's Public Health Orders in place for over four years?
BC did not lift its Public Health Orders until July 2024—more than 28 months after every other province in Canada. Prince Edward Island was the second-last province to lift its Public Health Orders, in March 2022. Twenty-eight months. No other jurisdiction in Canada came close.
The answer matters because I believe this single decision is the root cause of British Columbia's shortage of healthcare workers. During those additional 28 months, thousands of health care workers were terminated, changed careers, took early retirement, or left BC altogether. Many health care workers from the rest of Canada and around the world also chose not to come here.
The Public Health Orders were put in place for one reason: to stop the spread of COVID-19. When science confirmed in late 2021 and early 2022 that vaccination did not prevent transmission, the rest of Canada lifted its Public Health Orders, brought health care workers back, and—like much of the rest of the world—moved on.
BC did not.
We can never move forward or resolve any crisis until we understand its root cause.
Dr. Henry should have no difficulty being transparent. She received the Order of Canada and numerous other awards for her work. If the decision to keep the Public Health Orders in place for an additional 28 months was supported by scientific evidence, then she should have no hesitation explaining that evidence to the people of British Columbia.
I am turning to you because the Premier and the BC NDP have ignored my seven requests for an independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic—an inquiry that should not be about vaccine safety, or even whether the Public Health Orders were initially necessary. It should be about why they remained in place for more than four years and who was accountable for that decision.
Despite the silence, I want every MLA receiving this email to know: the dream never dies, just the dreamer. This dream is shared by a very large number of British Columbians.
So I will ask the question that no one in government seems willing to answer:
How can a public health emergency last more than four years with no accountability and no oversight?
It was not only health care workers who suffered. Every resident of this province continues to suffer because many doctors and other health professionals retired or left BC. The result is rotating emergency room closures—not only in rural British Columbia, but in the Lower Mainland as well.
I respectfully ask that you make this question a priority during the fall session and seek an answer from Dr. Bonnie Henry on behalf of all British Columbians.
One question. This fall.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@DrKindyMLA @Conservative_BC @bcndp @RobShaw_BC @One_BCHQ @BCGreens @GlobalBC @BCGovNews @bcpsef @Dallas_Brodie @TaraArmstrongBC @Jordan_Keal @Fightingmandate @BCNursesUnion @bcgeu @paulgfinch @DreaHumphrey @RebelNews_CA @WesternStandard #heubc @bcpoli A Simple Question: What Science Did BC Have That No Other Province Had?
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>1:20 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Anna
Dear Dr. Anna Kindy, MLA
Official Opposition Critic for Health
CC: All Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
I am writing to you as the Official Opposition Critic for Health, and I am asking you to make one thing a priority during the fall session of the Legislature: to demand that Dr. Bonnie Henry answer one very simple question that every British Columbian deserves answered.
Let me be clear at the outset. This has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I am neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine. This is about one decision and the accountability owed for it.
The question is this:
What science did Dr. Bonnie Henry and BC Public Health have in their possession that no other public health officials in Canada had—science that justified keeping British Columbia's Public Health Orders in place for over four years?
BC did not lift its Public Health Orders until July 2024—more than 28 months after every other province in Canada. Prince Edward Island was the second-last province to lift its Public Health Orders, in March 2022. Twenty-eight months. No other jurisdiction in Canada came close.
The answer matters because I believe this single decision is the root cause of British Columbia's shortage of healthcare workers. During those additional 28 months, thousands of health care workers were terminated, changed careers, took early retirement, or left BC altogether. Many health care workers from the rest of Canada and around the world also chose not to come here.
The Public Health Orders were put in place for one reason: to stop the spread of COVID-19. When science confirmed in late 2021 and early 2022 that vaccination did not prevent transmission, the rest of Canada lifted its Public Health Orders, brought health care workers back, and—like much of the rest of the world—moved on.
BC did not.
We can never move forward or resolve any crisis until we understand its root cause.
Dr. Henry should have no difficulty being transparent. She received the Order of Canada and numerous other awards for her work. If the decision to keep the Public Health Orders in place for an additional 28 months was supported by scientific evidence, then she should have no hesitation explaining that evidence to the people of British Columbia.
I am turning to you because the Premier and the BC NDP have ignored my seven requests for an independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic—an inquiry that should not be about vaccine safety, or even whether the Public Health Orders were initially necessary. It should be about why they remained in place for more than four years and who was accountable for that decision.
Despite the silence, I want every MLA receiving this email to know: the dream never dies, just the dreamer. This dream is shared by a very large number of British Columbians.
So I will ask the question that no one in government seems willing to answer:
How can a public health emergency last more than four years with no accountability and no oversight?
It was not only health care workers who suffered. Every resident of this province continues to suffer because many doctors and other health professionals retired or left BC. The result is rotating emergency room closures—not only in rural British Columbia, but in the Lower Mainland as well.
I respectfully ask that you make this question a priority during the fall session and seek an answer from Dr. Bonnie Henry on behalf of all British Columbians.
One question. This fall.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@BNederpel @HospEmpUnion @bcgeu @cupenat @CUPEBC @SimplyVoting @Conservative_BC @bcndp @One_BCHQ @TaraArmstrongBC @Jordan_Keal #heubc A Court Order Should Never Be Required for Election Transparency - Hospital Employees' Union Ratification Vote - Dec 19th
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>3:20 PM (0 minutes ago)
to info, black, elanoue, Barb, Shannon, Courtney, Kim, bcfed, mhancock, sburns, pfinch, bcgeuinfo
To: Simply Voting Inc.
Your company promotes itself as an independent third-party election provider whose purpose is to ensure election integrity, transparency, accuracy, and public confidence. Based on your conduct in the HEU ratification vote, those claims are becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile with reality.
On April 2, 2026, the Supreme Court ordered Simply Voting to disclose all information and documents relating to the December 19, 2025 HEU ratification vote, disclose all correspondence between Simply Voting and the Hospital Employees' Union, and preserve all voting data.
Whether the formal order has since been signed is beside the point. The order was made on April 2, 2026, and nearly four months later HEU members are still waiting for the transparency they should never have had to fight for.
The greatest disgrace in this entire matter is that a court order was ever required.
No voter in any democratic election should have to commence litigation simply to obtain independently verified election results from the company that counted the ballots.
Providing audited election results does not reveal how anyone voted. It does not breach confidentiality. It does not compromise election security. It simply allows voters to verify that the announced outcome accurately reflects the votes that were cast.
That is the very purpose of an independent election provider.
Instead, Simply Voting has chosen to withhold that transparency from the very people whose votes created the election.
The money paying your invoices does not come from HEU leadership. It comes from the dues paid by more than 60,000 HEU members. Those members are the stakeholders in this election. They are the ones whose confidence should matter most.
Instead of demonstrating independence, Simply Voting has created the appearance that protecting its commercial relationship with HEU leadership has become a higher priority than protecting the integrity of the election itself.
That should concern every organization in Canada that entrusts Simply Voting with its elections.
An election company has only one product.
Trust.
Without trust, it is simply another software vendor.
True independence is demonstrated when an election provider is prepared to withstand scrutiny—not when it resists it. Independent organizations should welcome transparency because transparency validates their work. Refusing transparency inevitably raises questions that would never have existed had the information been disclosed voluntarily.
This issue is no longer about one union or one ratification vote.
It is about whether Canadians can have confidence that election providers remain accountable to the voters rather than exclusively to the organizations that hire them.
If independently verified election results require expensive litigation and a Supreme Court order before they can even be sought, then Canadians need to ask what "independent third party" actually means.
Your reputation has not been damaged by members asking questions.
It has been damaged by your refusal to answer them.
Democracy depends on trust.
Trust depends on transparency.
Transparency should never require a lawsuit.
Stop treating HEU members as a problem to be managed and start treating them as the voters whose confidence you were hired to protect.
Shame on Simply Voting for allowing your commercial interests to create the appearance that they outweigh your responsibility to election integrity.
History will not remember who your client was.
It will remember whether you stood for transparency when it mattered.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

File Number VLC-S-S-261188

Details for Document: Order Made after Application
Close Date Filed: 02Apr2026
Filing Parties
Terms of Order
Order Made after Application
1. Part 1 Paragraph(s) #1 of the Notice of Application filed March 6, 2026 RE: Prohibiting Hospital Employees' Union from implementing bargaining agreement is dismissed.
2. Part 1 Paragraph(s) #2 to 4 of the Notice of Application filed March 6, 2026 are dismissed with leave to the plaintiffs to amend the Notice of Civil Claim to include the same reliefs sought.
3. The plaintiffs shall, within 14 days, amend the Notice of Civil Claim to remove paragraph A in part 2 and paragraph 4 in part 3.
4. Each party will bear their own costs of the application.
5. The defendant, Simply Voting Inc, will: a) dislcose all information and documents in its possession or control related to the ratification vote as defined in the Notice of Application filed March 6, 2026; b) disclose all correspondences between it and the Hospitals Employees' Union; c) be restrained from deleting, altering, or overwriting any data relating to the ratification vote
6. Part 1 Paragraph(s) #5 to 10 of the Notice of Application filed March 6, 2026 as against Hospital Employees Union are dismissed
7. Order Signed on Bench (Notice of Application filed 06MAR26) RE: Consent Order // Dismiss paragraphs

I don't send these emails and posts expecting a response. I send them because they create a permanent digital footprint. Every unanswered email, every refusal to provide information, and every lack of transparency becomes part of the public record. Over time, that record paints a picture of how HEU leadership and those involved respond—or fail to respond—when members ask legitimate questions.
What I've also learned is that this group and HEU leadership are now linked through AI and Google search results. The digital record they're creating today will follow them for years. Transparency and accountability may be absent from their responses, but their silence is becoming part of their legacy.

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@BNederpel @HospitalEmploy2 @bcgeu @paulgfinch @bcfed @Conservative_BC @bcndp @bcpoli @RobShaw_BC @DreaHumphrey @cupenat @CUPEBC @VancouverSun @WesternStandard @RebelNews_CA #HEUBC HEU Delegates: It's Time for a Change in Leadership

In November, HEU delegates face a clear choice: another term for Barb Nederpel, or new leadership.

Since Nederpel joined the Provincial Executive in 2012—and especially since becoming president in 2018—HEU members have seen no meaningful gains. That stagnation rivals the damage of Gordon Campbell's 15% wage rollback in 2004. At least that attack came from a hostile government. This one comes from within.

Delegates should be asking hard questions:

Where did the COVID savings go? During the pandemic, meetings moved online, travel and per diems dropped sharply, and offices were closed. Other unions invested those savings in lasting assets—BCGEU bought real estate in Metrotown and built a residential tower now leased to BC Housing. What did HEU members get?

Why is the strike fund so small? HEU hasn't had a full strike since 2004. By the end of 2024, the strike fund stood at approximately $27.3 million, while BCGEU's defence fund exceeded $132 million—even after major real estate investments. HEU members also pay some of the highest dues of any public sector union in British Columbia at 2.15% of gross earnings, yet many members feel they receive the least representation in return.

What's the story behind the $2 million Community Savings investment? In 2025, HEU invested $2 million in Community Savings Credit Union, an institution that I believe offers relatively low returns. Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert both serve as directors of the credit union. In my view, members deserve answers about whether bringing HEU funds to the credit union could benefit them personally in the future, including through preferred shares or other financial advantages—a potential "nest egg" after leaving HEU.

How much of our dues have gone to the BCNDP and affiliated organizations instead of strengthening representation and member services?

Why are there still unanswered questions about the December 2025 ratification vote? The ratification results changed two days after voting closed, and HEU has refused to provide the audited results from December 19.

Beyond finances, I believe HEU has become increasingly divided by identity politics when we should be united around what affects every member: wages, working conditions, job security, and accountability.

The 2024 Team Barb chat group speaks for itself. In my view, it shows that Barb actively organized and relied on support from Filipino members as part of her strategy to maintain power. I encourage every delegate to read the chat and draw their own conclusions.

This vote isn't about personalities. It's about the direction of our union.

For the good of HEU, I believe Barb Nederpel should resign. If she chooses not to, then it's up to HEU delegates in November to vote for new leadership.

If you believe HEU needs greater transparency, stronger financial accountability, and leadership that puts members first, November is your chance.

Barb Nederpel should resign. If she won't, HEU delegates should vote her out in November.

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@bcpsef @Fightingmandate @RobShaw_BC
What Happened to Your Collective Agreement Rights After the LOU?
Whether you were a member of HEU, BCNU, HSA or another public sector union, I think there is one question that deserves an answer:
How did the Letter of Understanding (LOU) result in many terminated members effectively being treated as external applicants when seeking to return to work?
The LOU preserved certain rights for terminated employees and states that it is without prejudice to the parties' positions regarding disputes arising under the Collective Agreement.
So where did those rights go?
How did the unions conclude that many members should be treated as though they were simply applying for a brand-new job?
What contractual or legal authority supports that position?
One HEU member recently submitted a request under BC's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) seeking all personal information the union held about him.
The response was surprising.
Despite previously being told that the members grievance had been withdrawn and his file closed, HEU later confirmed that:
remains an HEU member;
grievance remains active; and
HEU continues to represent the member.
If that can happen in one case, it raises an obvious question:
How many other members across BC's public sector unions have never requested their own records?
This is why I encourage every affected member—not just in HEU, but in every public sector union—to submit a PIPA request to your union asking for all personal information it holds about you.
You are entitled to know:
whether you remain a member;
the status of your grievance;
whether your union continues to represent you;
what decisions were made in your case; and
the records and correspondence the union maintains about you.
You may find that the records tell a different story than what you were told.
The email below is an example of how one HEU member is respectfully asking the union to explain several apparent inconsistencies and identify the contractual and legal authority supporting its position. I am posting it because I think it asks questions that many members across all public sector unions may also wish to ask.
For more than four years, British Columbia's healthcare workers were subject to Public Health Orders. Many workers are still trying to understand how those orders were applied, how their grievances were handled, and how thecLOU affected their rights.
Regardless of which union represented you, don't assume you know the whole story because of what you were told several years ago.

I believe the BCNDP government and the public sector unions worked together to keep the emergency orders in place for more than four years, saving tens of millions of dollars while healthcare workers paid the price. No other province in Canada treated its healthcare workers this badly.

Request your records. Read them yourself. Ask questions.

Request for Written Clarification Regarding Grievance #
Chris Dorais
Co-ordinator, Public Sector Servicing
Hospital Employees' Union
5000 North Fraser Way
Burnaby, BC V5J 5M3

By Email: [email protected]
July 17, 2026
Re: – Grievance #
Dear Mr. Dorais,
I am writing because I have been unable to reconcile several documents and communications issued by HEU concerning my grievance, my rights under the Facilities Bargaining Association Collective Agreement, and the July 29, 2024 Letter of Understanding respecting the cessation of the Public Health Orders ("LOU").
I would appreciate a written explanation of HEU's position and the contractual and legal authorities upon which it relies.
1. Status of Grievance #
Your letter dated September 23, 2024 advised:
"The grievance regarding your termination and any associated grievances will now be withdrawn and the files will be closed."
However, on July 16, 2026, HEU's Privacy Officer advised me that I remain an HEU member, that Grievance # remains active, and that HEU continues to represent me in relation to that grievance.
These statements appear difficult to reconcile.
Please explain:
What is the current status of Grievance #?
Was the grievance ever formally withdrawn? If so, when and under what authority?
If it was not withdrawn, why was I advised that it would be withdrawn and the file closed?
2. My Rights Under the Collective Agreement
The LOU provides that it is without prejudice to the parties' positions concerning disputes arising under the Collective Agreement and recognizes specified employment rights for terminated employees upon rehire.
I have difficulty reconciling those provisions with HEU's correspondence, which appears to treat me as an external applicant.
Please explain:
What is HEU's position regarding my rights under the Collective Agreement following my termination?
If HEU's position is that some or all of those rights no longer apply, what contractual provision, statutory authority, arbitral decision, Labour Relations Board decision, or other authority supports that position?
How does HEU reconcile that position with paragraph 4 of the LOU?
3. HEU's Interpretation of the Public Health Orders
I am attempting to understand HEU's position regarding the effect of the Public Health Officer Orders.
Article 6.02 of the Collective Agreement provides that an employee who refuses a required vaccination without sufficient medical grounds may be dismissed.
I am uncertain whether HEU's position is that the Public Health Orders themselves required termination, or whether HEU relies upon some other contractual or legal authority.
Please explain:
What is HEU's position regarding the distinction, if any, between an employee not being permitted to work under the Public Health Orders and an employer's subsequent decision to terminate employment?
If HEU's position is that termination was appropriate in my circumstances, please identify the authority upon which HEU relies.
Does HEU rely upon the Provincial Health Officer Orders, Article 6.02 of the Collective Agreement, employer policy, arbitral decisions, or a combination of these?
4. HEU's Position Regarding My Grievance
HEU advised that my grievance would not proceed further through its internal process.
Please explain:
What were the principal contractual provisions and authorities upon which HEU relied?
What is HEU's current position regarding Grievance #?
If HEU's position remains that the grievance should not proceed, does HEU consider the dispute resolution process under paragraph 5 of the LOU to apply to my circumstances? If not, why not?
Request for Response
I would appreciate a written response within 14 days.
Where HEU relies upon provisions of the Collective Agreement, the Labour Relations Code, the LOU, arbitral decisions, Labour Relations Board decisions, or any other authority, I would appreciate those authorities being identified.
If I have misunderstood HEU's position on any issue, I would appreciate your clarification. My goal is simply to understand HEU's position and the contractual and legal basis upon which it relies.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Yours truly,

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

@BNederpel @HospEmpUnion @RobShaw_BC @cupenat @CUPEBC @bcfed @bcndp @Conservative_BC @One_BCHQ @TaraArmstrongBC @Jordan_Keal @bcpoli @paulgfinch #heubc Request for Independent Review of HEU Strike Fund and Financial Priorities
Jessie Bains <[email protected]>7:36 AM (0 minutes ago)
to: mhancock, cupemail, sburns, HEU, crennick, shillier, pgloutney, gmckay, slucas, alinkletter, aclark, sdrost, htessier, mhurley, ymcclean, bkeith, cprefontaine, trebelo, agonsalves, dmerrier, dbellerose, KRanalletta, illoyd, Mlarocque, kpeterson, ruppal, Lynn, sskidmore, hkailley, pfinch, cgordon, webpres, bcfed, sburns00, sherryh, dawnbellerose, marty75chantel78
Dear Mr. Hancock and Members of the CUPE National Executive Board
I am writing to respectfully request that CUPE National conduct an independent review of the management of the HEU Strike Fund and the financial priorities that have resulted in its current level. I have copied the CUPE National Executive because I believe this is an issue of significant importance to HEU's approximately 70,000 members and to CUPE as a whole.
HEU members are currently supporting BCNU members on the picket line. However, many members have been told they are limited to four hours of paid picketing per day because HEU has a limited budget. Members understandably question why their union cannot provide greater financial support during a labour dispute when maintaining a strong strike fund is one of the primary reasons union dues are collected.
According to HEU's 2024 audited financial statements, the Strike Fund had a balance of approximately $27.3 million. During HEU's recent round of bargaining, members were also told the fund was closer to $20 million. Regardless of which figure is used, many members are asking why a union representing approximately 70,000 members, which has not experienced a province-wide strike since 2004, has accumulated a strike fund of this size.
Members are also being told not to worry because, once HEU's Strike Fund is depleted, HEU can rely on CUPE National's Strike Fund. If that is the expectation, I respectfully ask CUPE National to clarify whether HEU has become financially dependent on CUPE's Strike Fund rather than maintaining sufficient reserves of its own. HEU members pay 2.1% of their gross earnings in union dues—among the highest dues rates of any major public-sector union in British Columbia—and reasonably expect HEU itself to be financially prepared for collective bargaining and strike action.
The comparison with other public-sector unions also raises legitimate questions. According to BCGEU's 2024 audited financial statements, its Defence Fund stood at approximately $132.6 million while representing about 95,000 members. I recognize that each union determines its own financial priorities and strike fund policies. However, the significant difference between the two funds raises reasonable questions about whether HEU has placed sufficient emphasis on building the financial reserves needed to support its members during labour disputes.
There are also legitimate questions about the significant operational savings realized during the COVID-19 pandemic. For an extended period, HEU offices were closed, conventions were held online, and travel, conferences, per diems, and many other operating expenses were substantially reduced while members continued paying full union dues. Members deserve to know how those savings were allocated and whether a meaningful portion was directed toward strengthening the Strike Fund.
Confidence in HEU's financial stewardship has also been affected by the ongoing controversy surrounding the 2025 collective agreement ratification vote. Many members continue to question that process, and HEU remains involved in litigation concerning the release of the independent Simply Voting audit. While that matter is separate from the Strike Fund, it has contributed to broader concerns about transparency, accountability, and governance.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that CUPE National conduct an independent review of:
The growth and management of the HEU Strike Fund since the last province-wide strike in 2004.
Whether HEU's financial priorities have appropriately balanced member representation, operational spending, and strike preparedness.
The extent to which pandemic-related operating savings strengthened the Strike Fund.
The extent to which HEU relies, or expects to rely, on CUPE National's Strike Fund rather than maintaining sufficient reserves of its own.
Whether HEU's current Strike Fund is adequate for an organization representing approximately 70,000 members that collects 2.1% of members' gross earnings in union dues.
HEU members contribute substantial union dues with the expectation that their union will be financially prepared to protect and support them during collective bargaining and labour disputes. I believe members deserve an independent and transparent accounting of how those funds have been managed over the past two decades.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bains

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

https://t.co/kdsZihsaUb

The BC government wants to hold opioid companies accountable—just not itself.

The Attorney General is celebrating a Court of Appeal win allowing the province's class-action lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors to proceed.

But this raises an uncomfortable question: If the government believes pharmaceutical companies should be held accountable for opioid harms, what accountability applies to its own safe supply programs?

Since 2017, the BCNDP has used taxpayer dollars to purchase and distribute prescription opioids as part of its overdose response. The same government now positioning itself as the champion of accountability has spent years defending policies that put these drugs into circulation.

That's not hypocrisy by accident—it's a tension the government has never reconciled publicly.

There's also the timing. Similar lawsuits have already succeeded or advanced in other provinces. After nearly a decade in power, BC is joining litigation that was already well underway elsewhere—while framing itself as leading the charge.

If governments expect pharmaceutical companies to answer for opioid harms, then government opioid policies should face the same scrutiny.

What do you think?

[Jessie Bains 🍁🍁ca @J1972322]

One Union. One Standard. It's Time for an Independent Investigation.
I encourage every HEU member who has concerns about how the Public Health Officer Orders were applied to request an independent investigation into whether HEU leadership and staff were subject to the same requirements as frontline members, and if not, what legal or policy basis existed for any different treatment. Given that HEU President Barb Nederpel serves on the BCNDP Provincial Executive, members are entitled to ask whether any actual or perceived conflict of interest existed and whether that relationship had any bearing on decisions affecting HEU leadership or the union's response to the Public Health Orders. After thousands of members lost their jobs or careers, transparency and accountability are essential to restoring trust.
To: HEU Ethics Commissioner
Subject: Request for Investigation – Transparency, Conflict of Interest, and Application of the Public Health Officer Orders
Dear Ethics Commissioner,
I am requesting that you conduct an independent investigation into whether HEU leadership complied with the Hospital Employees' Union Code of Conduct during the implementation of the Public Health Officer vaccination requirements.
Thousands of HEU members faced termination or other employment consequences for failing to comply with the Public Health Officer Orders. These events had devastating financial and personal consequences for many members.
Given the significant impact on the membership, I believe it is appropriate to determine whether HEU leadership and staff were held to the same standards they expected members to follow.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Ethics Commissioner investigate and answer the following questions:
Were HEU elected officers, including the President, Vice-Presidents, Secretary-Business Manager, Financial Secretary, and Provincial Executive members, subject to the same Public Health Officer vaccination requirements as frontline HEU members?
Were HEU staff employees subject to the Public Health Officer Orders? If not, what was the legal or policy basis for that distinction?
Did HEU request, negotiate, or receive any exemption, accommodation, or different treatment for HEU officers or staff regarding the Public Health Officer Orders?
If different rules applied to HEU leadership or staff, when was that decision made, who authorized it, and on what authority?
Did any member of HEU leadership participate in discussions or decisions relating to the application of the Public Health Officer Orders while simultaneously serving in positions with political parties or government advisory bodies?
Did HEU leadership adequately disclose to the membership any differences between how the Public Health Officer Orders applied to members compared with HEU staff or elected officers?
Did any actual or perceived conflict of interest arise in HEU's representation of members affected by the Public Health Officer Orders?
Did HEU leadership comply with all obligations under the HEU Code of Conduct concerning honesty, transparency, accountability, and acting in the best interests of the membership?
If the Ethics Commissioner determines that these matters fall outside your jurisdiction, I respectfully request that you identify the appropriate body or process responsible for reviewing these issues.
The purpose of this complaint is not to seek disclosure of any individual's confidential medical information. Rather, it is to determine whether HEU leadership complied with its ethical obligations and whether members were treated fairly, consistently, and transparently during one of the most significant events in the union's history.
I respectfully request written reasons for your decision together with any findings made during your investigation.
Sincerely,
HEU Member