The truth about Jessie Bains

You may have more questions. That’s OK! You can find answers to many of Bains' unfounded accusations here in our FAQ.

We’ll do our best to keep this up-to-date.  

Let’s keep our union strong – and free from misinformation and division. We’re stronger together.  

Thank you. 

Community Savings Credit Union 

Community Savings Credit Union (CSCU) is a B.C.-based credit union founded by the labour movement in 1944 to provide banking services rooted in worker and community values. It is HEU’s primary financial institution and serves more than 100 unions and organizations across British Columbia.

HEU’s Constitution requires the union to deposit its funds in a designated credit union or bank. HEU banks with CSCU because it's a labour-founded credit union that provides values-aligned banking services for unions, workers and communities.

In July 2025, HEU’s Provincial Executive voted to invest HEU funds in Community Savings shares. That investment was made by the union and remains an HEU investment.

HEU has not made loans or provided financial assistance to Community Savings. Any HEU investment with CSCU is reviewed through the union’s normal financial controls and confirmed through independent audit reporting.

HEU encourages its locals to bank with CSCU and more than 200 locals do just that.

Is there a conflict of interest with the decision for HEU to invest in shares with Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert serving on the Board of Directors of CSCU? Did they benefit financially from HEU’s investment?

No. The HEU Ethics Commissioner determined that it was not a conflict of interest for Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert to participate in the Provincial Executive’s July 2025 decision to invest funds in Community Savings shares.

The Ethics Commissioner found that their roles as Community Savings directors do not place their loyalty to HEU in conflict with the credit union, and that they do not personally benefit from HEU deposits or investments in Community Savings. (source: HEU Ethics Commissioner bulletin)

To be clear, Barb and Lynn do not personally hold HEU’s Community Savings shares and do not receive any personal financial benefit from HEU’s investment.

Both officers are expected to follow the conflict-of-interest rules and governance standards that apply to their roles on the Community Savings Board and HEU’s Provincial Executive.

Political action

Unions have always been political organizations because politics directly affects workers’ wages and working conditions.

Fighting for workers at the bargaining table is essential, but it is not enough on its own. To win lasting improvements for workers, unions also need to speak up in the political arena, where governments make decisions that shape public services, employment standards, and workplace safety. 

Governments set employment and occupational health and safety standards, negotiate public sector collective agreements, and fund the public services that working families rely on. These decisions have a direct impact on HEU members and the communities they serve. 

That is why workers and unions have long been involved in supporting and electing politicians who understand workers’ issues.

Did HEU spend members’ dues as political donations to the BC NDP? 

No. Political donations from unions and corporations have been banned in B.C. since 2018. HEU has not made political donations to the BC NDP since that ban came into effect. 

Instead, HEU works to encourage members to vote, educate members about the issues, and speak publicly about issues that affect members’ jobs, working conditions and public health care.

HEU’s political action work is part of the union’s role in defending members’ interests and protecting public health care. 

Did HEU break its Constitution by spending money on election-related activity? 

HEU members work in public health care, and public health care is shaped by political decisions. That’s why HEU speaks up during elections: to defend members, protect services, and make sure workers have a voice when decisions are being made.

No. HEU did not break its Constitution by spending money on election-related activities.  

HEU’s position is clear: the union’s Constitution allows spending through its Political Education and Action provisions for member education and mobilization, including election campaigns that support politicians who advance HEU’s aims and objectives.

The claim also confuses two different things: Elections BC reporting rules and HEU’s constitutional spending limits. Reporting spending to Elections BC does not mean that our overall spending violates HEU’s Constitution.

HEU followed its Constitution. Reporting election-related activity under provincial election rules does not automatically make that activity improper under HEU’s own rules. 

2025 FBA ratification vote 

At the end of 2025, the Facilities Bargaining Association approved a new four-year collective agreement that included wage increases of three per cent in each year of the agreement.

The same wage increases were later adopted across the rest of the public sector, including by the B.C. General Employees’ Union and the B.C. Teachers’ Federation.

The agreement also begins a historic multi-agreement wage restoration plan to address the damage caused by the 2004 wage rollbacks. Health employers and government have committed to continue wage restoration beyond 2029 through permanent wage adjustments in future collective agreements.

In addition, by September 30, 2028, government will restore common wages, benefits and working conditions for several thousand unionized workers in non-profit and privately operated long-term care and assisted-living facilities that are currently excluded from the FBA.

This is an important step toward reversing years of privatization that led to wage cuts, weaker working conditions and high staff turnover in seniors’ care.

Three HEU members, working with Jessie Bains, filed a lawsuit that initially sought to stop implementation of the agreement, including wage increases and retroactive pay for members. They later withdrew that part of the case but are still in the courts pursuing damages for themselves against the union. The impact of this case has cost members a significant amount in legal fees. 

Did HEU refuse to provide certified ratification vote results because members voted no? 

No. The ratification vote results were communicated to members on December 19, 2025, through a media release and mass email, and verified and finalized results were sent to all HEU members on December 22, 2025. 

The December 22 update stated that 108 of 161 HEU locals voted in favour of ratification and included a link to a spreadsheet report breaking down the verified and finalized results by local. 

Did members vote in favour of the Facilities Bargaining Association tentative agreement? 

Yes. 108 of 161 HEU locals voted in favour, meeting the constitutional local-threshold requirement. The overall Facilities Bargaining Association vote across the nine unions was 54.2 per cent in favour.

Were former members allowed to vote in the ratification process? 

No. Former members are not allowed to vote on union business, and the union has no evidence, and has been provided no evidence, that former members voted in the ratification. 

Were members allowed to vote in more than one local?

Yes, where a member belongs to more than one HEU local. This is a longstanding practice and is consistent with Article 11, Section H(a) of the Constitution, which provides that eligible members in each local vote individually on proposed terms of settlement. Members who belonged to more than one local were eligible to vote in each local where they were a member. See the HEU Constitution.

Was the Shorncliffe local counted twice in the ratification vote? 

No. The Shorncliffe Local represented members at the Shorncliffe Care Centre, a long-term care facility that closed and was replaced by the privately operated Silverstone Care Centre. HEU members at Silverstone continue to work under the Facilities Collective Agreement. The workers transferred to the new facility and retained their Local and its name by choice. Local names do not have to reflect the name of the facility pursuant to Article 14, Section A. 

Miscellaneous conspiracies

Is $250,000 missing from the Vancouver General Hospital local? 

This rumour has been circulating on online pages controlled by Jessie Bains. Based on HEU’s review of the bank statements up until October 1, 2026, and our oversight of local finances, HEU has not identified any concerns with the VGH Local, and has seen nothing to suggest that $250,000 is missing. Nevertheless, to put these rumours to rest, HEU hired an external investigator to conduct a third-party review, so that members will have the added comfort from an independent review of this matter.  

An external investigation found no evidence of missing funds and concluded that the allegations publicly circulated by former HEU member Jessie Bains were “entirely unsubstantiated, unfounded, and without merit.” The investigator reviewed bank statements and cleared cheques from January 2023 to September 2026, spot-checked supporting records for eleven transactions, and interviewed people involved in the local’s finances.  The local’s quarterly reports were late during 2024 and 2025 but are now current; those delays did not establish that money was missing or anything improper occurred because the account statements and other financial records provide a complete accounting.  

The investigator also found no evidence that local funds were spent improperly or diverted to the BC NDP, that HEU President Barb Nederpel and Financial Secretary Betty Valenzeula personally benefited from VGH Local’s funds, or that former VGH local chair Lisa Kreut signed cheques for improper expenditures as claimed by Bains. All of these allegations were unfounded and had no foundation in fact.

The investigator concluded: “The financial records have established that VGH Local’s funds are intact, its financial resources have increased over time, its transactions and supporting documentation have been appropriately documented, and there is no evidence that any funds have been spent improperly, misappropriated, or directed for improper purposes, political or otherwise.” (p.13) 

You can read the full report here

How are Provincial Executive members compensated? 

Provincial Executive members who are not one of the three full-time officers continue to receive their regular wages when they are booked off from their jobs to carry out union duties, including attending Provincial Executive meetings. They also receive a daily per diem when attending HEU events and meetings in their PE roles, just as HEU members do when they attend union education courses. 

Are HEU elected officers earning more than $250,000? 

No. HEU’s Financial Secretary reported at the 2024 Convention that the salary of the President and Financial Secretary is five per cent above the coordinator wage rate. The annual wage rate reported at that time was $169,915.

Did Lynn Bueckert receive an automatic 28 per cent raise without Provincial Executive approval?

No. When HEU hired a new Secretary-Business Manager in 2021, the wage for the position was set to reflect competitive compensation for comparable senior positions.

When Lynn Bueckert stepped into the role of SBM on an interim basis in March 2024, she received the wage that had been attached to the position in 2021, consistent with the principle of equal pay for equal work.

This wage is comparable to  senior leadership positions in other large unions.  For example, the BCNU Executive Director of Member Services makes a range between $165,000 and $230,000 in 2026. In 2023, the CUPE National President was paid $211,189. In 2024 the HEU Provincial Executive unanimously approved the decision to hire Lynn Bueckert as the current Secretary-Business Manager. 

Did Barb Nederpel receive a 28 per cent raise or hire a consultant to justify one? 

No. Barb Nederpel did not receive a 28 per cent wage increase. Based on a 2024 convention resolution, in 2026 HEU engaged an external organization to review the wages of the officers. HEU’s Financial Secretary reported at the 2024 Convention that the salary of the President and Financial Secretary is five per cent above the coordinator wage rate. The annual wage rate reported at that time was $169,915.

Does HEU spend 50 per cent of its budget on staff salaries?

Yes. About 50 per cent of union dues support the staff who provide direct services and support to members. This includes our servicing staff answering questions about your rights as a worker and making sure members have the proper representation when they need help most. HEU has over 60,000 members and our staff team includes departments like legal, education, communications, finance, organizing, bargaining, information technology, research, occupational health and safety, workers compensation and long term disability appeals, operations and support staff, in addition to member services. HEU staff compensation is negotiated through their union (PEA), and wages are comparable with those at other similarly sized B.C. unions.

Why do some HEU staff representatives earn $72.42 per hour? 

The $72.42 hourly rate applies to Representative 3 positions, which are the highest-level representative positions.  These roles are highly specialized, including work on WorkSafeBC appeals and other legal work on behalf of our members. 

Were leadership and HEU staff excluded from the requirements of the COVID vaccine?

The Provincial Executive were covered by the mandatory vaccination "requirements" of the Provincial Health Officer's emergency health order issued in October 2021. Most members of the PE worked at sites also covered by this order and were subject to the Order. 

Full-time officers of the union were not covered by the PHO Order as they were not currently employed at workplaces subject to the order. However, they followed the HEU staff requirement, and all received the vaccine.  

HEU staff were not covered by the PHO Order on mandatory vaccines.  However, HEU staff were required to follow all PHO orders and internal Communicable Disease Policies. 

Did HEU work with the Provincial Health Officer to extend the vaccine mandates? 

No. Contrary to what some corners of the internet may suggest, HEU was not moonlighting as the Provincial Health Officer. Vaccine mandates were public health Orders made by the Provincial Health Officer and government. HEU’s role was to support and represent members through the impact of those Orders. 

Has Barb Nederpel influenced the Labour Minister to make changes at the Labour Relations Board? 

No. Barb Nederpel does not control the Labour Minister, the Labour Relations Board, or the machinery of government, though that would certainly make for a very dramatic conspiracy theory. She did not influence any Minister to make changes at the Labour Relations Board. This claim was initiated by former HEU member Jessie Bains. He has had more than one unsuccessful claim at the Labour Relations Board and in the court cases related to the LRB. In one instance, he sued a B.C. labour board adjudicator after receiving an unfavourable ruling in a dispute with the union. The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed two of his appeals. You can read more here: Canadian Lawyer article. 

Did HEU fail to represent Jessie Bains in his grievances? 

No. HEU did not fail to represent Jessie Bains in his grievances. The union advocated for Bains and it went to an Industry Troubleshooter, a well-respected and experienced labour arbitrator, who recommended that the grievance be settled with pay in lieu of reinstatement because the employment relationship and the trust required for it was “clearly and unequivocally damaged irreparably”.

The arbitrator noted that “[Bains] is, to a great degree, author of his own misfortune in the way he has chosen to dispute actions or outcomes that he does not agree with or believes is not fair from his standpoint. Instead of letting his selection greivances run their course, which may have resulted in him obtaining the IT position he sought, he appears to have been unable to help himself from attacking those who he thought was behind the decisions against his interests.”  

The arbitrator recommended that Jessie Bains be paid on the high side of these types of cases, and recommended two years for each year of his casual service, rounded up to 5 months’ pay plus 15% gross up representing benefits. Bains refused to accept the settlement and instead filed seven applications at the Labour Relations Board alleging that HEU failed in its duty to represent him.  

All seven of his applications were dismissed by the Labour Relations Board. Jessie Bains’ application for leave and reconsideration of the panel’s decision was also dismissed by the Labour Relations Board.

You can read the decision here.

Why did it take so long for HEU to share this information?

HEU created this webpage because Jessie Bains has spread so much disinformation that it was causing confusion for our members. HEU tried to resolve this matter through the proper processes. We recently sent another cease-and-desist letter, but he ignored those letters, leaving us with no choice but to respond publicly.