During the judicial review, the BC Supreme Court overturned the sentence. Telus did not dispute that housing requiring accommodation to a negotiated duration of the collective agreement and the cases in which the worker applied to be represented by the Union were circumstances in which the Union was entitled to participate in the accommodation procedure. She argued that many requests for accommodation of workers, such as. B, requests for ergonomic chairs, lighting adaptations and adaptations in the workplace, without changes in the negotiated duration of the collective agreement or without effect on other workers, could be resolved and not require the union`s involvement. The Union deplored the fact that Telus had notably violated the collective agreement between the parties by refusing to include the Union in the process of housing workers seeking medical disability. The Union had the right to inform, inform and question all requests for accommodation. There was no such provision in the collective agreement. Moreover, during the last round of collective bargaining, the Union had tried not to negotiate the inclusion in the collective agreement of a provision which would have expressly granted it that right. The Union argued that its rights as an exclusive bargaining partner meant that the employer rejected the right to negotiate different terms of employment with individual workers covered by the certificate and that it was not appropriate for the employer to communicate directly with EU members without including the Union.
The Union also pleaded for it to participate in all accommodation applications, since the collective agreement contains the Canadian Code of Human Rights, which would trigger the union`s obligation to participate in the accommodation process, the obligations set out in Renaud.  The Supreme Court found that the certification of the bargaining authority would not give the Union the right it claimed and set aside the arbitrator`s decision that it was deemed inappropriate.  Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products v IWA – Canada, Local 1-424, (2004) 129 LAC (4.) 181. There are clearly circumstances in which union involvement is beneficial to the employer. In many workplaces, collective agreements provide for joint housing committees, favourable to unions and employers, that have housing management practices and procedures.