Self-Representation 101: Identifying Areas Your Union Won’t Support You (Part 2)
Three critical cases unions tend to withdraw their support: Disregarded Freedom of Conscience & Spiritual Practices, Employer-Induced Health Risks, Silencing Through Behavioural Control
TL;DR (Summary)
This article (Part 2) of the Self-Representation 101 series outlines three critical scenarios where unions—especially within federal service—refuse to support their members, even when livelihoods and dignity are at stake:
In each of these, the employer’s actions are severe, and the union’s absence is devastating—often resulting in financial ruin, psychological trauma, and a complete loss of hope. These topics are conspicuously absent from union websites, leaving affected members feeling disillusioned, abandoned, and questioning the union’s priorities.
This article offers legal and moral alternatives for members left unsupported, including the right to bring a non-union McKenzie Friend to disciplinary hearings. It underscores a vital message: you are not alone. Future articles in this series will provide specific tools and steps for self-advocacy.
Although the 2021–2022 vaccination mandate is used here as a reference point, the guidance offered applies broadly. These are structural issues—and this series is here to help you navigate them, now and in the future.
Introduction
As highlighted in the inaugural issue of this new Self-Representation 101 legal-focused series, a growing number of union members have reported that their cases are not being supported. In most instances, the union’s Employee Relations Officer (ERO) advises against filing a grievance, and even though an appeal process is technically available, it almost never results in a reversal.
In this second article, I examine three recurring types of cases where the union tends to withdraw its support. The goal is to offer guidance to employees who find themselves abandoned by their union. Future articles will explore each of these case types in more detail, providing practical language and steps to help you represent yourself.
The Hidden Cost of “Recommendation Against Grieving”
The standard phrase used by the ERO is:
“We do not recommend grieving in this situation.”
While technically an opinion, this statement effectively ends institutional support for many employees. An appeal process is formally available through the Director of Employer Relations (formerly Nancy Lamarche), but based on multiple testimonies, this process is often exhausting and rarely changes the outcome.
From a data science and legal perspective, we can start to identify patterns in these cases. Below are three preliminary categories where union support is commonly withdrawn:
Case Type 1: Disregarded Freedom of Conscience & Spiritual Practices
Scenario: The employee seeks accommodation or exemption from a policy (e.g., mandatory medical procedures, dress code, training requirements, work schedules, or other mandatory group activities) on religious or spiritual grounds.
Union’s Position: The union denies support, often stating that the employee’s beliefs do not constitute a "religion" but rather a "creed"—especially if not linked to an organized church or religious leader. In doing so, the union effectively positions itself as knowing better than the member what spiritual or enlightenment practices are appropriate, disregarding the member’s personal convictions and autonomy.
Legal Risk: Employees may face termination or other serious disciplinary actions if they cannot comply with requirements that contradict their beliefs.
Vulnerable Groups:
Practitioners of non-institutional religions (e.g., some forms of Hinduism, Buddhism)
Indigenous spiritual practitioners
Personal religious convictions not affiliated with a church
The Gravity of Employer’s Decision:
This can result in the total loss of employment and income, prolonged suspensions, and psychological destruction as individuals are forced to act against their deeply held beliefs.
The Gravity of the Union’s Absence:
This is equally devastating. The union may have been the member’s last hope for institutional support. Without it, the sense of abandonment and betrayal can become overwhelming—causing severe mental health consequences, even suicidal ideation. After years of dues, the member is left feeling dehumanized, unprotected, and entirely alone.
Note:
When the union says your belief is not a “religion” but a “creed,” they typically refer to the Ontario Human Rights Code or Canadian Human Rights Act, both of which define creed broadly but still give institutions leeway to dismiss beliefs not tied to organized religion. This gray area is what allows them to sidestep support, despite protections in Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Case Type 2: Employer-Induced Health Risks
Scenario: The employer mandates a policy or action that is known or suspected to cause physical harm (e.g., known medical side effects, for particular health conditions).
Union’s Position: Instead of supporting the member, the union aligns with the employer and dismisses the harm. Members report that unions have tried to convince them the action is "good for them," even when medical testimonies or personal history indicate otherwise.
The Gravity of Employer’s Decision:
Forced compliance can result in long-term health damage, medical trauma, and loss of bodily autonomy. Refusal may lead to dismissal or indefinite suspension.
The Gravity of the Union’s Absence: Instead of advocating or even acknowledging the pain, the union gaslights the member—minimizing the seriousness of their health concerns or dismissing them entirely. The physical and psychological harm resulting from employer-imposed risks is ignored. These types of risks, especially those resulting from coerced medical or procedural compliance, are nowhere to be found on union websites or discussed in union communications.
Case Type 3: Silencing Through Behavioural Control
Scenario: Employees are instructed not to discuss in public or publish anything related to politics—in other words, to remain silent on any matter that concerns them deeply or affects their well-being, health, and life (such as the issues raised in Case Types 1 and 2), regardless of time, place, or platform.
Union’s Position: The union claims that such instructions are part of the employee’s contract—requiring them to follow managerial directives, even when those instructions are overly broad, unrelated to professional duties, and restrict the employee’s fundamental right to express concerns about their health, well-being, or spiritual beliefs.
The Gravity of Employer’s Decision:
Such restrictions effectively suppress the employee’s ability to express legitimate concerns and exercise fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, opinion, and expression. The directive reduces the individual to a passive role—expected to comply silently—even when the issues at stake concern their health, well-being, or personal integrity. This undermines not only the employee's dignity but also the principles of democratic participation and workplace fairness. Continued expression leads to progressive discipline:
First infraction: 1-day suspension without pay
Second: 1-week suspension
Third: 2-week suspension
Fourth: 4-week suspension
Fifth: Termination
All for merely exercising basic human rights, completely unrelated to job performance.
The Gravity of the Union’s Absence:
By not challenging these employer directives, the union effectively signals that such actions are acceptable. This lack of response emboldens employers to continue overreaching, without fear of accountability or resistance. When a union stands with its members, employers are more cautious—they know they are being watched and held to account. But when the union is silent, it sends a message that all is well, even when members are suffering.
Worse still, when these critical human rights concerns are not even acknowledged on the union’s website, it suggests that the union prefers to engage only with safer, surface-level topics—such as AI panels or social activities—while ignoring the most troubling and consequential issues faced by its members.
What's Next?
These are not marginal issues—they strike at the heart of workplace justice, human dignity, and individual survival. When a union refuses to stand with its members in the most critical moments, it leaves them not only unrepresented, but deeply vulnerable.
This series exists to fill that void. It is designed to inform, equip, and empower members who feel abandoned and alone.
One key principle underpins this work: You still have rights—even without union support. You are not powerless, and you are certainly not alone.
If you are called to a disciplinary hearing, remember: you have the legal right to bring a support person. This does not have to be a union representative. It can be a trusted friend, colleague, or experienced ally. In legal terms, this is known as McKenzie Friend support—and it can make a real difference.
In the next article, based on the anonymized testimonials of several members (to protect their privacy and prevent further retaliation), we’ll begin to unpack how to represent yourself when no one else will. This includes learning more about the discipline framework and how progressive disciplinary measures escalate. We’ll cover the full disciplinary process: from pre-disciplinary meetings to final decisions. You'll learn how to prepare for these meetings, how to write your own grievance when union support is absent, and how to document your case for future legal or public review. Each article will include actionable steps, suggested language, and real examples.
This is more than a series—it's a roadmap for standing your ground when institutions fail you. And it starts here.
Acknowledgment
Article is written with assistance from ChatGPT using the prompt: "wa as legal. It came to my attention that there are a number of types of cases which the union doesn't want to support members with..."
Disclaimer
This article's opinions are that of the author, not of any institution. It is not for legal or medical advice.
Support This Work Across All Channels
If this article helped you or someone you know, please help raise awareness:
Like and share it with your network
Post it in relevant groups and forums
Mention it in grievance appeal letters
You can follow me here:
🔹 LinkedIn
🔹 Facebook
🔹 Twitter/X
🔹 YouTube (@Dr.Dmitry.Gorodnichy), YouTube (@IVIM)
My articles are, and will always remain, free to read.