Former executives sue Union of Northern Workers over building decision

A decision to greenlight some remediation work at the Union of Northern Workers’ Yellowknife headquarters is at the centre of a legal dispute between the union and two of its former executives.

Andrew Gregory and Christopher Taff were respectively the union’s regional vice-president for the North Slave and first vice-president before they resigned in May.

They launched a lawsuit in NWT Supreme Court earlier this year alleging the union breached its membership contract by refusing mandatory meetings, starting the multi-million-dollar remediation project without executive approval, and denying them access to the project file as they had not signed a non-disclosure agreement. Gregory and Taff argue as executive members they were entitled to view the file regardless.

In a statement of claim (which itself says it was prepared using AI), Gregory and Taff allege that in April, the executive was briefed on a $7.9-million proposal to rectify some issues with the building. They assert that while some members of the executive had questions and concerns about the project, union president Gayla Thunstrom denied requests to hold meetings about the matter in April and May.

The lawsuit states the executive then received an email in May that the union’s finance committee had decided to move forward with the initial phase without delay.

Gregory and Taff allege the finance committee did not have the power to make that decision, pointing to union regulations that state capital purchases above $20,000 shall be approved by a quorum of the executive.

They want an accounting of all union payments and commitments related to the project and are asking the NWT Supreme Court to permanently restrain the union from making any further commitments or payments without a resolution of the executive committee.

In the same lawsuit, Taff is seeking $16,767.03 from the union to cover unrelated legal expenses.

Union denies wrongdoing

In a statement of defence filed earlier this month, the union denies the allegations.

The union asserts that its regulations and bylaws did not require executive committee debate nor approval for phase one of the four-phase remediation project to proceed. The union says money for the first phase is coming from a building and reserve fund that was previously approved at a convention to pay for such work. The union adds that remediation was needed without delay for building code, health and safety reasons.

The union says it has not committed to the full multi-phase $7.9 million remediation project but has budgeted around $1.2 million for phase one.

The union alleges executive meeting requests were denied in April as they were not backed by a majority of committee members as required, and in May because Canadian Labour Congress convention business took priority.

A non-disclosure agreement was needed to access the project file as it included sensitive and confidential documents, the union states, and there had been previous privacy breaches related to confidential discussions with legal counsel.

The union denies it is liable for Taff’s legal fees, which it says are related to a harassment complaint against him. The union alleges Gregory and Taff’s lawsuit was made for the “improper purpose” of pressuring the union to drop the investigation into the harassment allegations.

Union suing over fireproofing, insurance coverage

According to court documents, remediation of the union’s building on Yellowknife’s 53 Street is related to previous fireproofing work. That work is the subject of two other ongoing lawsuits in NWT Supreme Court.

In 2020, the union launched a lawsuit against Clark Builders, Donalco Western Inc, Firez Inc and ABC Corporation, as well as a lawsuit against Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company, which is now Intact Insurance.

The first lawsuit alleges spray fireproofing installed throughout the building in 2015 and 2016 does not meet specifications in fire and building codes, is not thick enough, and does not meet adhesion and cohesion requirements.

The union is seeking $3.1 million in damages for the removal and reinstallation of fireproofing as well as administrative and oversight costs.

All of the defendants have denied the allegations against them.

In the second lawsuit, the union is challenging the insurance company’s decision to deny it coverage related to deficiencies in the fireproofing. The insurance company asserts those deficiencies are not covered under the policy.