Union allowed unescorted access to floatel for workers on Woodfibre LNG project
The British Columbia Labour Relations Board has upheld an earlier ruling granting unescorted access to union representatives aboard the MV Isabelle X, rejecting Aramark Canada’s attempt to reinstate an employer escort requirement.
In its March 24, 2025 decision (2025 BCLRB 72), the Board dismissed Aramark’s application for leave and reconsideration of a February ruling that amended a previously agreed Consent Order between the company and UNITE HERE Local 40.
The order had initially required union representatives to be accompanied by an employer-appointed escort when engaging with employees aboard the floatel, which accommodates workers on the Woodfibre LNG Project near Squamish, B.C.
The labour board found the employer had not demonstrated a sufficient basis to maintain the escort requirement, stating, “It was not the union’s obligation to convince the original panel why the Escort Requirement was unnecessary, but rather the employer’s to justify why it was.”
In June 2024, the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) mandated that Woodfibre LNG relocate the converted cruise ship, intended to house workers, to a designated site in Howe Sound, near Squamish, B.C., The Canadian Press (CP) previously reported.
According to the EAO, all workers who did not reside in Squamish District before Sept. 20, 2023 were mandated to reside on the floatel.
An inspection on June 10, 2024, however, showed that approximately 350 workers were already housed in “unauthorized locations”, and the EAO issued an order for those workers to be relocated to the floatel by June 21.
The MV Isabelle X is operated by Bridgemans Floatel under contract with McDermott Energy Solutions (Canada), the firm managing the Woodfibre LNG Project. Aramark provides housekeeping, catering, and front desk services aboard the vessel.
In November 2024, Aramark had a human resources coordinator and a manager of human resources escort union representatives on the vessel and into a meeting room. The two HR representatives stayed in a nearby room while the union spoke with employees. Early this year, the union asked for a second visit — this time, without being escorted.
Aramark argued that the removal of the escort requirement would place it in breach of contractual obligations with Bridgemans and McDermott, who require escorted access for all visitors to the vessel. However, the labour relations board found the employer failed to demonstrate how eliminating the requirement would materially impact those agreements.
The board stated it did not interpret the earlier decision as undermining contractual safety standards, but rather as finding the employer had not justified the necessity of the escort condition in the context of union access rights.
Union activity is among the top issues for HR professionals in 2025, according to Dave McKechnie, a partner at McMillan LLP in Toronto.
In the Aramark versus UNITE HERE Local 40 case, the B.C. Labour Relations Board reaffirmed established precedent that protects employee privacy during union access periods under Section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Code.
Citing its 2018 decision in Red Chris Development Company, the board noted that even the perception of employer monitoring—such as surveillance or visible escorts—can have a “chilling effect” on employee willingness to engage with union representatives.
“In the context of an organizing campaign, surveillance—whether active or passive—can deter employees from exercising their rights of association,” the board stated.
The original access order had allowed union representatives to meet with employees in a designated room aboard the vessel, with Aramark’s human resources staff stationed in a nearby area. During the first access period in November 2024, employees could enter the meeting room using two different doors—only one of which would expose them to potential observation by employer representatives.
In modifying the consent order, the board directed that no employer personnel be stationed near the meeting location during future access periods and that all other terms—including adherence to site safety and security protocols—remain in effect.
“Workers have a right to discuss the prospects of unionizing without having their manager over their shoulder, listening to the conversation,” Unite Here Local 40 organizer Mike Biskar said, according to The Tyee. “It’s very important that workers feel that they can speak candidly.”
An employment lawyer previously cautioned that employers could be at risk of a lawsuit if their policy for monitoring employee devices is too vague.
