Duty of Fair Representation playbook

Before you open a file — who owes what

DFR binds the union, not individual stewards personally — but stewards create the paper trail officers and boards will read. Run this gate on every new member contact.

• Steward role. You intake facts, start the clock, and document what you did. You do not promise outcomes. Hand complex or conflict files to an officer the same day.
• Member rights. Members can ask how their file is handled and get a written answer if the union declines to grieve. They cannot demand that every complaint become a grievance.
• Officer decision. Local officers (or your CA’s named decision-maker) decide whether to file, advance, or settle. That decision must follow a real investigation — not a hallway vote with no notes.
• Conflict of interest. If you cannot represent the member fairly — same department feud, family tie, or you are a witness — recuse in writing and name who took the file.

Which statute and board apply

DFR language is similar across regimes, but the act and board differ. Confirm coverage before you cite a section in a member letter.

• Most Ontario private-sector unions. Labour Relations Act, 1995 s.74 — complaints go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). Read Information Bulletin 12 for the member-facing test.
• Ontario college support staff. Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 — not the LRA. Confirm your unit’s act with your servicing rep before quoting a section number.
• Federally regulated workplaces. Canada Labour Code s.37 — complaints go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB). Same arbitrary / discriminatory / bad faith language, different board and forms.

The arbitrary / discriminatory / bad faith test

Boards and courts look for honesty of purpose, non-discrimination, and a non-arbitrary process. Perfect outcomes are not required — a serious process is.

• Arbitrary. Rubber-stamping a refusal, never reading the file, treating similar cases differently for no documented reason, or missing a known CA deadline without an extension on record.
• Discriminatory. Treating members differently because of protected grounds, local politics, or personal dislike. Apply the same intake and investigation steps to every member.
• Bad faith. Lying to the member, burying evidence, advancing a personal agenda, or punishing a member for criticizing the local.
• Honest disagreement. After a real investigation, officers may reasonably decline a grievance. Document what you reviewed and why — a member can disagree without that being a DFR breach.

Day zero — open the file

The member’s first call sets every clock. Capture facts before opinions, and log the contact before you hang up.

• Same-day log entry. Record date, member name, contact info, supervisor or manager, what happened, and which CA articles might apply. One paragraph is enough — but it must exist.
• Calendar every deadline. Count forward from the triggering event: Step 1 filing, referral to arbitration, policy grievance windows. Put each date in your calendar and Officer Hub if you use it.
• Set expectations. Tell the member you will investigate before deciding. Do not say “we will win” or “this is definitely a grievance.” Give a realistic return date for your next update.
• Hand off conflicts. If you cannot act fairly, email the president or chief steward the same day: member name, issue summary, and who is taking the file. Do not leave the member waiting while you “think about it.”

Days 1–3 — build the record

Boards ask what the union did, not what it believed. Neutral notes beat clever arguments.

• Interview the member. Ask what happened, who was present, and what documents exist. Summarize in neutral language — “Member states…” — not “Member is right.”
• Request employer documents. Discipline letters, emails, schedules, attendance records — whatever the CA lets you request. Log the date sent and the date received.
• Identify witnesses. List names and what each might know. You do not need every statement before officers decide, but you must show you asked.
• Keep internal notes internal. Strategy belongs in the officer file — not group texts, not public social posts, not employer cc lines. Redact before sharing anything with the member.

CA deadlines — count forward

Missed grievance clocks are the fastest path to a DFR complaint. Your CA defines the trigger; this section is about discipline-style files where the event starts the clock.

• Find the triggering event. Usually the date of discipline, the date the member knew about the decision, or the date of the alleged violation — your CA names which. Write that date at the top of the file.
• Count business or calendar days. Read the CA literally: business days vs calendar days, whether weekends count, and whether the clock runs to the employer or the union. When unsure, ask your servicing rep before the window closes.
• Extensions in writing. If the employer agrees to extend a Step 1 meeting or filing window, get it in email or letter before the original date passes. “They said it was fine on the phone” is not a file.
• If you are already late. Stop and escalate to an officer immediately. Document when you discovered the miss and what remedy the CA allows — sometimes late filing can still be argued, but only with counsel involved.

When the union says no — say it in writing

Declining is lawful when the process was real. Silence or vague verbal brush-offs are what members take to the board.

• Written explanation. Plain language: what you reviewed (dates, documents, interviews), why the facts do not meet the grievance test under the CA, and the effective decision date.
• Offer a review path. Name who can reconsider — president, executive board, servicing rep — and how to reach them. Follow your local constitution if it adds steps.
• Escalate internally first. If the member asks for review, treat it seriously. A second pair of eyes on the same facts is cheap insurance against a DFR filing.
• Never ghost. Even a short email — “We reviewed your file on [date] and will not file a grievance because…” — closes the loop. No response reads as bad faith.

Worked walk-through: written warning intake

Member Alex receives a written warning on Monday, 3 March 2026, for “failure to follow scheduling procedure.” Alex believes the warning is without just cause. Your CA gives ten calendar days from receipt to file Step 1. Step 1 deadline: Thursday, 13 March 2026.

1. Day 0 — Monday 3 March — Alex calls at 4 p.m. You log intake: warning letter date, supervisor name, CA discipline article, and Step 1 due 13 March. You calendar 11 March as your internal “officer decision” date to leave two days’ slack.
2. Day 2 — Wednesday 5 March — You interview Alex and request the warning letter plus scheduling emails from HR. A colleague witness may confirm the shift was changed after Alex clocked in. Notes go in the file — facts only.
3. Day 4 — Friday 7 March — Documents arrive. Officers review: warning cites a procedure Alex was never trained on. Decision: file Step 1. If instead the facts were weak, you would draft the decline letter now — not after the 13th.
4. Day 8 — Tuesday 11 March — Step 1 meeting scheduled with employer for 12 March. Alex gets a plain-language update: what was filed, meeting date, and steward attendance. If you had declined, Alex would have the written explanation by today.

What loses DFR complaints in practice

Most cases are process failures, not evil intent. Leave a paper trail that shows serious consideration.

• Missed Step or referral deadline. The CA clock expired while the file sat in someone’s inbox. No extension on record. Fix: calendar at intake; escalate the day you see risk.
• No investigation on record. No interview notes, document requests, or officer decision memo. Fix: four neutral paragraphs in the file beat a perfect oral argument with nothing written down.
• Verbal no with no follow-up. Member told “we’re not grieving this” in a parking lot, never gets mail or email. Fix: send the decline template the same week officers decide.
• Promising victory. “We will get this thrown out” — then a decline lands. Fix: promise process and timelines, not outcomes.
• Personal conflict driving the decision. Steward dislikes the member or favours the supervisor. Fix: recuse early; let another steward or officer own the file with clean notes.

What to say — and not say — to the member

Good member communication prevents DFR complaints as often as good files do. Plain language, realistic timelines, confidentiality.

• Do not promise outcomes. Say: “I will investigate and the executive will decide whether to file.” Not: “This is an open-and-shut grievance” or “HR will back down once they see our letter.”
• Status on a schedule. If you promise an update by Friday, send one — even if the answer is “still waiting on documents.” Silence reads as abandonment.
• Keep their story confidential. Do not discuss the member’s case in the lunch room or on local social channels. Share facts only with officers who need them for the file.
• Disagreement is allowed. A member may be angry when you decline. Stay professional, point to the written explanation, and name the review path. Do not argue in text threads.