IN PROGRESS Under construction — this is a public information hub. For official union support, use LIUNA Local 1611.

Public record

Certification decision (2025 BCLRB 57)

How the Board addressed the build-up objection and confirmed certification at Vane Lawn and Garden.

Citation and case details

Citation: 2025 BCLRB 57 Case no.: 2025-000128 Date: March 7, 2025 Panel: Jonathan Hanvelt (Vice-Chair)

What happened

This decision covers a Section 18 certification application for workers at Vane Lawn & Garden Services (1981) Ltd., also commonly referred to as Vane Lawn and Garden, Vane Lawn & Garden, VLG. The key dispute was timing: VLG argued the application should be delayed because upcoming seasonal hiring would change the workforce composition.

The Board reviewed workforce patterns, representativeness, and the build-up argument in detail. It ultimately rejected VLG's objection and granted certification.

Evidence highlights

Build-up objection framed the dispute

VLG argued the certification application came too early because expected spring hiring would significantly increase the workforce size. It said the current workforce should not be treated as representative and asked the Board to delay certification using build-up principles.

2025 BCLRB 57 · Section: Employer submissions on build-up

Why this matters: This establishes the central issue in the case: whether timing should outweigh the current employee support evidence.

Board treated the 50% concept as guidance

The decision explains that representativeness is contextual and based on the full record. It treats the 50% concept as a useful guide rather than a strict threshold that automatically decides seasonal-workforce certification disputes.

2025 BCLRB 57 · Section: Analysis of representativeness

Why this matters: It clarifies that certification decisions rely on facts and context, not a rigid numeric trigger alone.

Seasonal expansion did not block certification

After reviewing workforce patterns, expected hiring, and timing evidence, the Board concluded the projected expansion did not justify delaying the application in this specific record. The reasons emphasize that anticipated growth alone was not enough to postpone a certification ruling.

2025 BCLRB 57 · Section: Board application of build-up factors

Why this matters: This is the turning point: the Board declined to postpone the process and moved forward on the existing evidence.

Result: certification granted

VLG's build-up objection was dismissed and certification was granted. The decision also records that unresolved role-status questions, including operations-manager classification disputes, could return to the Board under section 139 if the parties could not resolve them directly.

2025 BCLRB 57 · Disposition section

Why this matters: This confirms union certification and outlines the pathway for any later role-classification disputes.

What this means

For workers and new hires, this ruling confirms that certification moved forward even after VLG challenged timing under build-up principles. In practical terms, the union certification outcome remained valid.

The decision also leaves room for role-status questions to be addressed through the Board's process under section 139, rather than blocking certification itself.

Official sources