Is there an estoppel to compel a union to continue to enforce the time limits in the grievance procedure?

While the Union appears to have consistently failed to enforce the time limits over that period of time substantially within the principles discussed by Arbitrator McPhillips @ paras 92 and 93 in Sooke School District No. 62 v. Sooke Teachers’ Assn. [1995] BCCAAA No. 27 I am not convinced that an estoppel was established in this case for the reason that the time limits in this collective agreement are not mandatory in any event. An estoppel to compel the Union to continue to permit the Employer to exceed the time limits of the grievance procedure would not be effective because they are not binding in any event. While the word “shall” is used to describe the number of working days that may be taken at each of Stages 1 and 2, the prescribed remedy is not to penalize the employer for exceeding the limit but rather to give the Union an alternative remedy to advance the grievance to the next stage. Once the employer exceeds the time limit in any particular case, the Union has it within its power to immediately refer it to the next stage. Indeed, the language used in Article 3 is so clearly to that effect that one may properly wonder why the Union even felt compelled to refer it to arbitration. Out of an abundance of caution, however, it may properly be said that once the time limit for the settlement of a grievance has expired, the Union is not obligated to wait for the employer to answer the claim but it can do so if it wishes.