The threshold for Section 99(1)(b) review of an arbitration award

Camosun has successfully defended the timing of its first right of refusal practice. In Camosun College Board, 2026 BCLRB 38, Vice-Chair Sangha of the Labour Relations Board dismissed the Union's appeal. 

The original expeditated arbitration involved interpreting Article 1.02(g)(i) of the collective agreement, which sets out when a term faculty member earns the right of first refusal for future work assignments. Under Article 1.02(g)(v), once granted, those rights remain in effect for one year from the date of termination of the most recent term appointment. The Union argued that the grievor became eligible for right of first refusal upon teaching two semesters in each of two consecutive academic years, while the College argued that the grievor also needed to complete two full academic years of employment. The Arbitrator preferred the College’s interpretation and dismissed the grievance.

On appeal to the Labour Relations Board, the Union stated that the Arbitrator’s preference for the College’s interpretation effectively amended the collective agreement by reading out the words “from the date of termination of the most recent term appointment” in Article 1.02(g)(v). The Union’s concern was that, if eligibility for first refusal rights did not arise until completion of two full academic years, the grievor’s initial right of first refusal would be limited to eight months (Winter 2024 to Summer 2024), rather than the full year otherwise guaranteed by Article 1.02(g)(v).

Vice-Chair Sangha dismissed the application. He found that the Arbitrator had not read out the disputed words but had reconciled the eligibility provisions by accepting the College’s explanation that “the most recent term appointment” in Article 1.02(g)(v) referred to the latest term worked after right of first refusal was granted. On that reading, the grievor would not be limited to eight months of initial right of first refusal, and the Union’s concern was addressed. Vice-Chair Sangha determined that the Award demonstrated a genuine effort to interpret the collective agreement and was not inconsistent with the principles expressed or implied in the Code, and the Union’s appeal was dismissed.

What do you need to know?

An appeal under Section 99(1)(b) of the Code is not an avenue for relitigating the merits of an arbitrator’s interpretation of a collective agreement. An appeal will not succeed if the Arbitrator made a genuine effort to interpret the collective agreement.