September 3, 2026

When does heated collective bargaining negotiation rise to the level of bad faith bargaining? What obligation do parties have to explain their positions? These were two of the questions considered by the Labour Board in its recent decision: Metro Vancouver Regional District, 2026 BCLRB 200.   

The Union, Greater Vancouver Regional District Employees Union, and the Employer, Metro Vancouver, had been engaged in bargaining for nearly a year. These sessions were heated, with notes reflecting exchanges with raised voices and accusations of disrespectful conduct and misrepresenting positions. At least one session concluded early following a heated procedural debate.  After about fifteen sessions, the Employer filed an application with the Labour Board alleging that the Union had engaged in bad faith negotiations contrary to Section 11 of the Code.  Vice-Chair Sherry Shen dismissed the application.   

The Employer raised five issues. Here, we will consider two which offer valuable insight into how the Board distinguishes between legitimate bargaining strategy and bad faith bargaining, and how "heated" negotiations fit into the picture.  

Obligation to Explain Position (considering Van-Air) 

The Union tabled a proposal regarding extended health benefits. The Employer asked the Union to identify which benefits were most important to its members so it could make an informed counterproposal. The Union refused. The Employer alleged that this was bad faith bargaining. The Employer referred to the recent Labour Board decision of Van-Air Holdings, 2024 BCLRB 144 ("Van-Air"), to support its position, in which "the union advanced numerous significant and unprecedent proposals without providing a reasonable explanation for them." Vice-Chair Shen wrote that, not only did the Union's conduct in the present case not rise to this high level, but in fact the explanation that was provided by the Union "was sufficient to permit meaningful discussion of the proposal." The Union had no obligation to share how it prioritized different benefits, because it shared enough to keep discussions moving forward. 

Heated Negotiations 

Vice-Chair Shen acknowledged that a number of heated exchanges took place during bargaining. But in the whole context of bargaining, she found that these were isolated incidents "arising in the course of contentious negotiations." She found that the parties were ultimately still able to, and indeed did continue to, engage in meaningful discussions. These discussions continued for several months, until the Employer filed its application with the Labour Board.   

Lessons 

Parties have the right to strategically withhold some information. That may make things more difficult for the other side, but that is not bad faith. Bargaining is often contentious, even to the point of being heated, but that is not bad faith. It’s just the reality of bargaining.  

If parties are able to continue meaningful discussions, they are obligated to do so. They should not confuse difficult bargaining for bad faith bargaining.

If you are in a difficult round of bargaining and want a second opinion on where the line is, talk it through with us. Get in touch with the team at GoodWin Law.