2004 Decisions

Decision Search

Decisions issued in 2004

20/12/2004 - United Nurses of Alberta, Locals 23, 66, 82, 89, 102, 120, 140, 152, 160 and 164 and Chinook Regional Health Authority and Health Sciences Association of Alberta - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

14/12/2004 - TransAlta Utilities Corporation and United Utility Workers' Association of Canada - Formal Decision

Abandonment - s.45 - The Board dismissed the Employer's application seeking to amend a certificate on the basis the Union had abandoned its bargaining rights with respect to certain groups of employees. The application was premature given a recent decision of the Board rejecting similar arguments and given the state of negotiations between the parties.

The Board initiated an application to reconsider a certificate between the United Utility Workers' Association of Canada ("UUWA") and Transalta Utilities Corporation ("Transalta"). The Board proposed modifying the bargaining unit to exclude employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 254, mention of whom had been omitted in error. In response, Transalta applied to exclude additional employees from the UWAA certificate. Transalta filed a second application seeking to exclude the same employees pursuant to the Board's power to modify bargaining rights under section 45 of the Code. Transalta argued the Union had abandoned its bargaining rights for significant groups of employees. UWAA countered by arguing Transalta's application ignored a previous decision of the Board finding no abandonment and undermined an agreement reached by the parties (the "Scope Agreement") which represented a good faith effort to resolve large elements of the problematic bargaining history between the parties.

Held, The Board dismissed Transalta's application as premature in light of the Board's previous decision and the Scope Agreement. It was unrealistic to expect the parties to comprehensively resolve their differences about the scope of the bargaining unit in one negotiation over approximately three years. In addition, the Scope Agreement was a beginning to a negotiated settlement to the dispute, not an end. The Board held it was imperative to allow more time to pass under the regime of the Scope Agreement before the Board could draw any firm conclusions about the scope of the Union's certificate.

| View Decision |  

14/12/2004 - Veerpal Gill and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 373A - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

10/12/2004 - The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 and J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. and Christian Labour Association of Canada and Alberta Labour Relations Board and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146 - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Certification - Bars to - s.37(2) - Employee ratification of a successor collective agreement will remove the right to change unions by closing the statutory open period only where those employees receive advance notice that such a consequence would result from the act of ratification.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 (the "Union") applied for judicial review of two decisions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board. The first decision held that the Union's application for certification was barred, as the application was not filed within the open period created by the existing collective agreements. The Board held early termination of a collective agreement closed the open period that existed under the original agreement. The second decision refused to reopen the hearing into the first matter to receive new evidence the Union wished to tender.

Held, The Court dismissed the Union's applications. The certification application was not brought during any possible open period and was therefore dismissed as being untimely. While the ratification of a successor collective may trigger the termination of the predecessor agreement, without informed consent from the employees ratifying the agreement, the ratification will not also have the effect of an early closing of the statutory open period that existed under the predecessor agreement. As a result, the Board's finding that the hiring hall dispatch of a first employee resulted in the early closing of the open period was patently unreasonable because the dispatched employee was not informed of the consequence of his dispatch. The Court found no error in the Board's decision to not re-open the hearing.

| View QB Decision |  View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |

09/12/2004 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1007 and EPCOR Utilities Inc. and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 829 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

08/12/2004 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Mark Kovatch and Westfair Foods Ltd., Bruce Kent, Elizabeth Lietz, Scott Short, Merv Newton, Gilbert Robinson and Christina Bullis - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

08/12/2004 - Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) and Public Service Alliance of Canada and Lorna Vennard- Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

03/12/2004 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2010 and MNCM Construction Management Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

30/11/2004 - IKamini Sharma and Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47 and Silver Prime Hotels Ltd. (Holiday Inn Express) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

30/11/2004 - University of Alberta Non-Academic Staff Association v. Alberta Labour Relations Board, Governors of the University of Alberta and Augustana University College - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Judicial Review – s. 19(1) – Mootness – The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the Union’s applications for judicial review on the basis the application did not raise issues which justified the Court exercising its discretion in favour of hearing matters that were otherwise moot.

The University of Alberta Non-Academic Staff Association (“NASA”) sought judicial review of two decisions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board. The first decision partially granted a consensual adjournment application. The second decision dismissed an application by NASA to reconsider the first decision. NASA alleged a number of grounds for judicial review including issues relating to exercise of jurisdiction and natural justice. The Board granted the original certification application subsequent to the release of the Board’s decisions under review raising an issue whether the applications for judicial review were moot. As the Employer did not actively participate in the application, the Board took an active role in the judicial review hearing.

Held, The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed NASA’s application for judicial review on the basis the application did not raise issues which justified the Court exercising its discretion in favour of hearing matters that were otherwise moot. In addition to concerns about a lack of a true adversarial context given the employer’s decision to not actively participate, the Court held there were no true collateral consequence to the Board’s decision which justified the Court’s intervention. The Court was not prepared to accept on the unique facts of this case that the dispute was likely to recur in the future, a finding that supported not proceeding with the Union’s application.

| View QB Decision |  View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |

29/11/2004 - International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 and BURNCO Rock Products Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

27/11/2004 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and St. Joseph's Hospital and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 875 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

23/11/2004 - Canadian Corps of Commissionaires v. The Alberta Labour Relations Board and The Public Service Alliance of Canada and Peter Langford - Court of Queen's Bench Transcript - Decision portion only

Natural Justice - The Court, relying on the presumption of impartiality and jurisprudence suggesting tribunals may hear matters notwithstanding knowledge of forbidden information, found no reasonable apprehension of bias existed as a result of Board members being aware of a previous Board decision containing information on the parties willingness to settle the matter. The Court also held the doctrine of necessity would allow the Board to hear the matter.

The parties to a hearing before the Board made application to the Court of Queen's Bench for a determination whether a reasonable apprehension of bias existed such that no panel of the Labour Relations Board could hear the matter. The Employer argued that knowledge by the Board of a previous Board decision discussing an attempted settlement between the Employer and the Union disqualified the Board (or at least members who had read the Board decision discussing the settlement) from hearing the matter.

Held: The Court dismissed the Employer's application. The Court, relying on the presumption of impartiality and jurisprudence suggesting tribunals may hear matters notwithstanding knowledge of forbidden information, found no reasonable apprehension of bias existed as a result of Board members being aware of the Board's previous decision. The Court also held the doctrine of necessity would allow the Board to hear the matter.

| View QB Decision |  View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision |

19/11/2004 - Health Sciences Association of Alberta and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and St. Mary's Hospital - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

18/11/2004 - Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Employees Association of Calgary and Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc. and General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

15/11/2004 - Larry and Triton Fabrication Services Inc. and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

15/11/2004 - Stephen Richards and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 709, Dave Malden and The City of Calgary - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

10/11/2004 - Sean Bennett and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, Palace Casino Staff Association, Gateway Casinos Canada Inc. and the Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Successor Trade Union - s. 49(1) - The Court found the Board's decision finding the UFCW to be the successor union to a staff association to not be patently unreasonable. The merger process, while flawed, was sufficient to support the successorship declaration. The Court also held that a union successorship may occur where the predecessor union was only voluntarily recognized by the employer as opposed to being the certified bargaining agent.

Sean Bennett ("Bennett") and the Gateway Casino Canada Inc. ("Gateway") sought judicial review of a Board decision finding the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 (the "UFCW") to be the successor union to the Palace Casino Staff Association (the "Staff Association"). Bennett argued the Board erred in finding a successorship because of alleged flaws in the process that merged the UFCW and the Staff Association. Gateway argued a sucessorship declaration should not have issued where Gateway had voluntarily recognized the Staff Association but not the UFCW.

Held, The Court dismissed the application on the basis the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable. Addressing the validity of the merger, the Court concluded the Board's decision to issue the successorship declaration, despite a merger process the Board acknowledged contained flaws, was not patently unreasonable. The Court also found the fact Gateway had only voluntarily recognized the Staff Association and not the UFCW was not a bar to the issuance of the successorship declaration.

| View QB Decision |  View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision |

08/11/2004 - Bethany Care Society and the United Nurses of Alberta, Local 173 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

02/11/2004 - Deepak Channan and United Food and Commercial Workes Union, Local No. 401 and Westfair Foods Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

01/11/2004 - Public Service Alliance of Canada and Corey Tiede v. Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

29/10/2004 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 v. Accenture Business Services for Utilities Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

21/10/2004 - Public Service Alliance of Canada and Mark Levesque and Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

15/10/2004 - Public Service Alliance of Canada and Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

14/10/2004 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Bernadette Louvelle and Westfair Foods Ltd./ Real Caandian Superstore - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

14/10/2004 - Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Firestone Energy Corporation - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

13/10/2004 - Tewodros Abraha and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 1118 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

13/10/2004 - Public Service Alliance of Canada and Kevin Birney and Canadian Corps. of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

07/10/2004 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and University of Calgary - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

07/10/2004 -United Nurses of Alberta Local #233 affecting Enterprise International Inc. (Holy Cross Chronic Care Centre) and Enterprise Universal Inc. (Holy Cross Long Term Care Centre) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

07/10/2004 - Health Sciences Association of Alberta and Alberta Mental Health Board and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Canadian Union of Public Employees and Capital Health Authority and David Thompson Health Authority - Formal Decision

Employees - Status Determination - s.12(3) - Board dismissed an application by HSAA to have certain therapy assistants included in the paramedical professional and technical bargaining unit.

The Health Sciences Association of Alberta (HSAA) applied for determinations under section 12(3) of the Code that certain therapy assistants employed at Alberta Hospital Ponoka and Alberta Hospital Edmonton are employees in the paramedical professional and technical bargaining unit governed by the applicable collective agreements. The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE), the Employer and CUPE, as intervenor, opposed the application.

| View Decision |  

06/10/2004 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2103 and MNCM Construction Management Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

29/09/2004 - Alex Radvanszky and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 70, Kevin Jensen, Ewald Schwarz and Canadian Union of Public Employees - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

29/09/2004 - General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 and BFI Canada Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

27/09/2004 - Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Northwest Framing (Calgary) Ltd. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2103 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

24/09/2004 - United Nurses of Alberta Local #232 v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

08/09/2004 - United Nurses of Alberta and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta - Formal Decision

Bargaining in bad faith - s.60 - The Board held parties to a sophisticated bargaining relationship are entitled to use a court reporter to provide a transcript of the proceedings so long as the recording was unobtrusive and did not interrupt the hearing; the record taken was not an official transcript and a copy of the transcript was provided to the other party.

During bargaining, the Employer used, as part of its bargaining team, a professional stenographer and court reporter to record the bargaining sessions. The Union objected to the Employer's use of the reporter and indicated it would not meet further unless the verbatim recording ceased. The Employer indicated it planned to continue to use the reporter and would consider a continuing refusal by the Union to bargain to be contrary to its statutory obligation to bargain in good faith. The dispute was referred to the Board as a joint reference under section 16(3) of the Code.

Held, The Board held the Employer was entitled to record the bargaining sessions so long as the recording was unobtrusive and did not interrupt discussions; the record taken was not an official record of the proceedings; and any transcript produced is provided without charge to the Union. The Board reasoned the recording was written as opposed to a tape recording which may well have been objectionable, was in reality a substitute for note taking during negotiations and was done in the context of negotiations between large, sophisticated parties.

| View Decision |  

07/09/2004 - United Food and Commercial Workers, Local No. 401 and Shukri Mohamud and Lakeside Packers, a Division of Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

02/09/2004 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955 and The Good Samaritan Society (A Lutheran Social Service Organization) - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Judicial Review - s.19(1) - Certification - Bars to - s.34(1)(b) - The Court of Queen's Bench upheld the Board's finding that a certification application was untimely as a result of a voluntary recognition agreement between the Employer and another union.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (A.U.P.E.) applied to be the certified bargaining agent for a group of employees employed by the Good Samaritan Society (the Society). The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 (IUOE) claimed the certification application was untimely as the Society was bound by a collective agreement with the IUOE either through the successorship provisions of the Code or through voluntary recognition.

Held, The Board found AUPE's certification application was time barred by the voluntary recognition collective agreement in place at the date of the certification application. The Court held the Board's decision concluding a valid voluntary recognition agreement was in place was not patently unreasonable.

| View QB Decision |  View ALRB Decision |

30/08/2004 - Public Service Alliance of Canada and certain employees of Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

30/08/2004 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Packers, A Division of Lakeside Feeders Ltd., Lakeside Packers, A Division of Tyson Foods Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

27/08/2004 - Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Employees Association of Calgary and consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc. and General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

25/08/2004 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and Steeplejack Services (Edmonton) Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

25/08/2004 - Waiward Steel Fabricators Ltd. and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 805 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

25/08/2004 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and J & N Technical Services Ltd., Flint Energy Services Ltd., Flint Integrated Services Inc., Flint Infrastructure Services Ltd. and HMW Construction Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

25/08/2004 - Gilles Caron and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 30, Richard Colwell and The City of Edmonton - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

20/08/2004 - XL Meats Employees Association and XL Foods Inc. and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 - Formal Decision

Employer - Interference with Union- section 148(1) - The Board found the employer violated section 148(1) for conduct including management involvement in obtaining at least one employee's signature on the Association's petition.

Unions - Intimidation and Coercion - Unions - Union Activity on Employer's Property - section 151(d) and (f) - The Association violated section 151(d) and (f) while attempting to organize a group of employees. As a result of the doubt cast on the petition evidence, the certification application was dismissed.

The XL Meats Employees Association (the "Association") applied for certification of a unit of employees of XL Foods Inc. (the "Employer"). Shortly thereafter, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 (the "UFCW") applied for certification for the same group of employees. The UFCW objected to the Association's certification application on various grounds including that the support evidence filed by the Association was tainted. The UFCW requested the Association's application be dismissed and the UFCW's application be processed. The Association argued the support evidence was validly obtained and that at most the support of three employees should be discounted.

Held, The Board dismissed the Association's certification application on the basis the support evidence was obtained in violation of the Code. The conduct of Association and its representatives including significant misstatements about the Association's representational status for the employees in question was intended to coerce or unduly influencing employees to become members of the Association and to discourage them from becoming members of the UFCW. In addition some petition evidence was also obtained at the workplace. As a result of the violations of the Code and the doubt cast upon the petition evidence, the Board dismissed the certification application. The Board also found the employer breached section 148(1) of the Code by participating or interfering with the formation or administration of a trade union, the UFCW, as a result of conduct which included management involvement in obtaining at least one employee's signature on the Association's petition.

| View Decision |  

20/08/2004 - Arlen Peterka and Boilermakers Lodge 146 and Plumbers Local 488 and 496 operating as the Quality Control Council of Canada and All Test International Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

19/08/2004 - International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 805 v. Waiward Steel Fabricators Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

13/08/2004 - General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 affecting Ricoh Canada Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

13/08/2004 - United Nurses of Alberta, Locals 1, 34, 40, 65, 80, 95, 115, 119, 121, 143, 202, 206, 211, 307, 308 and 313 and Calgary Health Region and David Thompson Regional Health Authority - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

13/08/2004 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Carewest and Calgary Health Region - Formal Decision

Common Employer - s.47(1) - The Board dismissed AUPE's common employer application finding there was no associated or related activities, no common control or direction, no avoidance of a collective bargaining relationship and no valid labour relations purpose served supporting the issuance of the declaration.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees ("AUPE") alleged the Calgary Health Region ("CHR") and Carewest were common employers under s.47 of the Code. The parties agreed the first two of the four statutory requirements were met: AUPE is a trade union and there was more than one entity. They disagreed on whether the activities of Carewest and CHR are associated or related and on whether these activities were under common control or direction. The parties also disagreed whether the granting of a common employer declaration would serve a valid labour relations purpose.

Held, The Board dismissed the application. The CHR and Carwest were not engaged in the same work or enterprise and, as a result, were not engaged in associated or related activities. While there was some connection between the two organizations, in substance they delivered different services to different portions of the health care sector. Nor were they under common control or direction. While individual factors indicated some common control or direction, the totality of the evidence did not support such a finding. In particular, the operation activities demonstrated organizations that operated quite independent of one another. Had the Board found the four factors necessary to establish the two entities were common employers, AUPE failed to establish that the activities of the two organizations were designed to avoid a collective bargaining relationship or that the issuance of a common employer declaration would serve a valid labour relations purpose.

| View Decision |  

30/07/2004 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, Continuing Care Employers' Bargaining Association, Alberta Mental Health Board and Capital Health Authority and Alberta Labour Relations Board, The Alberta Federation of Labour, Health Sciences Association of Alberta, United Nurses of Alberta, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Dues - Payment - s. 114 - The Court of Queen's Bench held a dues suspension order pursuant s.114 must be made during the currency of a strike and on the initiative or motion of the Board as opposed to the affected employer.

As a result of an unlawful strike in the spring of 2000 and in response to applications from the affected Employers, the Board issued a series of decisions pursuant to s.114 of the Code directing the suspension of the deduction and remittance of union dues payable to the Union. The Union sought judicial review of the Board decisions on the grounds the Board failed to properly interpret s.114, failed to find that s.2(d) and s.11 of the Charter had been infringed and that it committed procedural errors resulting in a breach of the rules of natural justice.

Held, The Court granted the Union's application and quashed the Board's decision on the basis the Board erred in its interpretation of section 114. First, the Board erred in concluding that an application under s.114 may be made by the affected employers. The Court held the directive must be made on the Board's own motion or initiative. Second, the Court found that a directive under s.114 must be made during the currency of the unlawful strike and could not be made, as the Board found, after the strike had ended. The directive in this case had been issued after the unlawful strike had ended. The Court also found s.114 violated section 2(d) of the Charter but was saved by s.1. The Court dismissed the Union's arguments the Board breached the rules of natural justice.

| View CA Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision |
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |

22/07/2004 - The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and St. Joseph's Hospital Board - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

22/07/2004 - Phillip Cartlynne and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 805, Ted Rignanesi, George Papineau, Jason Currie, Rob Key, Michael Bartnicke and Waiward Steel Fabricators Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

22/07/2004 - University of Alberta Non-Academic Staff Association and Augustana University College - Letter Decision

| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |  View QB Decision |

21/07/2004 - BPB Canada Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. D345 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

16/07/2004 - Public Service Alliance of Canada and Peter Langford v. Canadian Corp. of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) and the Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Reconsideration - s.12(4) - Natural Justice - The Court held a reasonable apprehension of bias existed when the Board continued to hear and decide an unfair labour practice complaint after having been apprised of the contents of an apparent settlement agreement. It further held the Employer had not waived its right to object to the reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada ("PSAC") and Peter Langford ("Langford") sought judicial review of a Board decision (the "Reconsideration Decision") overturning another decision (the "Original Decision") of the Board. The Original Decision found the Board could continue to hear an unfair labour practice complaint after having been apprised of the contents of an apparent settlement agreement relating to that complaint as the Employer had waived the right to rely on the reasonable apprehension of bias. On reconsideration, the Employer argued that the original panel's decision to hear the unfair labour practice complaint after having been apprised of the content of the settlement raised a reasonable apprehension of bias that disqualified the original panel from continuing to hear the complaint and that had not been waived by the Employer. The reconsideration panel upheld the Employer's argument and overturned the Original Decision. PSAC and Langford sought judicial review of the Reconsideration Decision.

Held, The Court denied the application. First, a reasonable apprehension of bias existed when the original panel decided the unfair labour practice complaint having been apprised of an apparent settlement agreement relating to that complaint. Second, the Employer had not implicitly waived its right to object to the reasonable apprehension of bias.

| View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision |

13/07/2004 - General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 and BFI Canada Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

08/07/2004 - Finning (Canada), a Division of Finning International Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 and certain employees of Midwest Bulk Fuel Sales Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

25/06/2004 -Health Sciences Association of Alberta and Capital Health Authority and The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Certain Employees of Capital Health Authority - Formal Decision

Employees - Status determination - s.12(3)(o) - The Board held, on the facts of this case, laboratory assistants fell within the general support services unit as opposed to the paramedical technical unit.

The decision addresses whether certain laboratory assistants employed by the Capital Health Region at the University of Alberta Hospital and Royal Alexandra Hospital fall within the standard paramedical technical bargaining unit or the general support services bargaining unit. The laboratory assistants were located in the general support services bargaining unit. The Employer and AUPE argue they should remain in that unit while the HSAA argues they properly fall within the standard paramedical technical bargaining unit.

Held, The Board held, on the facts of this case, laboratory assistants fall within the general support services unit. The Board's decision reviews the discussion of the two bargaining units found in Information Bulletin #10, caselaw interpreting the meaning of the two bargaining units, and the meaning of the words "paramedical" and "technical" including the amount of education required to fall within the paramedical technical unit. The Board held the "core idea" behind the paramedical technical unit recognizes a community of interest among those employees who perform medical functions under the direct supervision or authority of a physician, which requires advanced training in a field of scientific knowledge and the application of that knowledge to health care practice, but excludes such employees who are organized to the most significant extent according to the professional model. Ultimately, the Board concluded the employees met the paramedical portion of the bargaining unit description but did not possess sufficient "technical" job requirements to fall within that bargaining unit.

| View Decision |  

10/06/2004 -Alberta Teachers' Association and Medicine Hat Catholic Separate School Regional Division No. 20 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

8/06/2004 -The Alberta Teachers' Association and Rocky View School Division No. 41 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

7/06/2004 -Calgary Health Region and United Nurses of Alberta Locals 1, 40, 65, 80, 95, 115, 119, 121, 143, 202, 206, 211 and 307 et al. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

7/06/2004 -University of Alberta Nonacademic Staff Association and Augustana University College - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  View QB Decision | View Decision |  

3/06/2004 -Marc Saumure and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local Union No. 1112, Diane Hollingshead, Cam Sellick and Foremost Industries Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |  

3/06/2004 -Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Local 39 and Southern Alberta Institute of Technology - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

17/05/2004 -Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 52-A and Edmonton Catholic Regional Division No. 40 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

10/05/2004 - United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 and Gateway Casinos Canada Inc. and Sean Bennett - Formal Decision

Successor Trade Union - s. 49 - The Board held the merger between the Union and the Employee Association was in substantial compliance with the Union's constitution. It further held that while the process was not without problems, it was not sufficiently unfair, oppressive or undemocratic to warrant a confirmatory vote. Finally the Board held s.49 did not violate s. 2(d) of the Charter and that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding whether one union has acquired "rights, privileges and duties under this Act."

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 401 (the "Union") claimed to be the successor trade union to the Palace Casino Employees Association (the "Association") as a result of a merger between the Union and the Association. Gateway Casinos Canada Ltd. (the "Employer") and certain employees opposed the application - primarily on the basis the merger process was defective. The case raised several issues including: the division of authority between the Board and the Courts over trade union mergers; the test the Board applies to claimed trade union successorship; whether the merger process followed in this case was defective; whether and when the Board might order a confirmatory vote to validate a defective merger process; and whether the union successorship provisions of the Code violate guarantees of "freedom of association" under the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Held, The Board granted the Union's application. It held the Union's merger with the Association was valid. There was "substantial compliance" with the Union's constitution. In addition, the merger process itself did not offend the principles of fairness and democratic governance. While a relatively close case, the impact of the format and timing of the merger meeting, combined with the quality of the information given to members at the meeting did not result in a process that was sufficiently unfair, oppressive or undemocratic to warrant a confirmatory vote. The Board also concluded the union successorship provisions of the Code do not violate s.2(d) of the Charter. Finally, the Board held it has exclusive jurisdiction for "the narrow but important purpose of deciding whether one union has acquired 'rights, privileges and duties under this Act."

| View ALRBDecision | View QB Decision | View QB Decision |

23/04/2004 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amercia. Local Union No. 1325 and J & N Technical Services Ltd., Flint Energy Services Ltd. and Flint Integrated Services Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

22/04/2004 - Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Jim Bendfeld v. Jan Dezentje, Gordon Dombrosky, Denis Roy, William Warchow, General Presidents Maintenance Committee and Delta Catalytic Inc. - Formal Decision

Reconsideration - s. 12(4) - The Board dismissed the Local Union's request to reconsider the Board's decision finding it liable for the breach of the duty to fairly represent the Respondents. It also dismissed the request to add the International as a responsible party.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 424 ("Local 424") sought reconsideration of a Board decision finding Local 424 breached its duty of fair representation under section 153 of the Code with respect to the Respondents, Dezentje, Dombrosky and Roy. In particular, Local 424 disagreed with the Board's finding of liability against Local 424. It argued any finding of liability should have been against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers International (the "International"). Local 424 also requested the Board invoke the jurisdiction it reserved to consider adding the International as a responsible party.

Held, The Board rejected both the reconsideration application and the request to add the International as a responsible party. Addressing the reconsideration application, the Board held the arguments advanced were raised before the original panel and did not form a proper foundation for reconsideration. The Board went on to find no error in the original decision to justify the reconsideration request. With respect to the invocation of the reserved jurisdiction, the Board stated the purpose of the reservation was to allow Local 424 to show, if it had a basis on which to do so, that the International was given sufficient notice of the proceedings to justify an order adding them to the proceedings. The Board found no such information was put forward by Local 424 and, as a result, dismissed the request to add the International as a responsible party.

| View ALRB Decision | View CA Decision | View QB Decision |
| View QB Supplemental Decision | View ALRB Decision |

20/04/2004 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 424 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 254 and Siemens Building Technologies Inc. - Formal Decision

Abandonment - Reconsideration - s.12(4) - The Board held the Union had abandoned its bargaining rights after periods of inactivity of 14 and 24 years respectively.

The Board addressed the concept of abandonment in two cases involving bargaining rights in the construction industry held by local unions of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the "Union"). In the first case, 14 years had elapsed since the last direct dealings between the Union and the employer. In the second case, the period without contact was approximately 24 years. A Reconsideration Panel of the Board addressed the following questions: 1. whether trade unions can lose certified bargaining rights through inaction; 2. whether the doctrine of "abandonment of bargaining rights" operates outside the narrow circumstances expressly identified in the Labour Relations Code; 3. whether the Board has the authority under its general power of reconsideration to cancel the abandoned bargaining rights; and 4. whether any special considerations apply to abandonment of bargaining rights in the context of the registered part of the construction industry.

Held, The Board answered each of these questions in the affirmative. First, the doctrine of abandonment operates such that certified bargaining rights can be lost through inaction on the part of a union. It serves a compelling policy need by preserving the integrity of the representative relationship between trade unions and employees and protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties to the employment relationship that have developed over the period of time a trade union was not actively pursuing its bargaining rights. Second, the Code's revocation procedures are not exhaustive. The Board's reconsideration power can also be used to consider issues of abandonment. Third, the Board through its reconsideration power has the power to cancel abandoned bargaining rights. Finally, special considerations apply to abandonment of bargaining rights in the construction industry because of the significant periods of time during which employers may be without work or simply inactive and the lack of face to face contact because of the multi-employer bargaining structure. These factors will generally have the effect of requiring a longer period of trade union inactivity to ground a finding of abandonment than in other industries.

| View Decision |

19/04/2004 - The City of Lethbridge, the City Fire Fighters Union No. 237, I.A.F.F. and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 70 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

16/04/2004 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

16/04/2004 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3197 and Muskwachees Ambulance Authority Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

16/04/2004 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and Value Scaffold Inc. and North American Scaffold Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

14/04/2004 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and XL Foods Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

13/04/2004 - Darren Lopushinsky and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146 and Lockerbie Industra Inc. (Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc.) - Formal Decision

Unions - Fair representation duty - s.153 - The Board found the Union breached its obligation under section 153 of the Code to fairly represent the Complainant. The Board concluded the Union should have carried out a further investigation before concluding the Complainant had no grievance and considered a number of other issues impacting on the strength of the Complainant's grievance.

Darren Lopushinsky (the "Complainant") filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 146 (the "Union") failed to fairly represent him in connection with the termination of his employment. The primary allegation advanced by the Complainant alleged serious negligence or arbitrariness in the Union's investigation into his termination and potential grievance.

Held, The Board found the Union breached its obligation under section 153 of the Code to fairly represent the Complainant. The Board concluded the Union should have carried out a further investigation before concluding the Complainant had no grievance and considered a number of other issues impacting on the strength of the Complainant's grievance.

| View Decision |

8/04/2004 - City of Lloydminster and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1015 - Letter Decision

| View Decision | View QB Decision |

6/04/2004 - Capital Care Group Inc. and The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

24/03/2004 - Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 987 and The City of Lethbridge - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

17/03/2004 - Alberta Labour Relations Board and United Utility Workers' Association of Canada and TransAlta Utilities Corporation; TransAlta Utilities Corporation and United Utility Workers' Association of Canada - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

17/03/2004 - The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Capital Health - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

11/03/2004 - Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47 v. Ahmad Hamid and Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

04/03/2004 - Shayne Morgan v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 46 and The City of Medicine Hat - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

03/03/2004 -  The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Battle River Regional Division No. 31 - Formal Decision

Reconsideration - s. 12(4) - Bargaining Unit - Appropriateness - s.34(1)(c) - The Board dismissed the Union's reconsideration application seeking reconsideration of a previous decision finding an "all employee" unit excluding teachers and bus drivers was not an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.

The Union seeks reconsideration of the Board's finding that the bargaining unit applied for in a certification application ("All employees in Beaver Ward except teachers and bus drivers") was not an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. The Union alleges errors of fact and law or mixed fact and law. These alleged errors include errors involving conclusions or comments on access to collective bargaining; difficulty in organizing the particular group of employees; comments with respect to the Union organizer; and comments with respect to the Original Panel's "general experience".

Held, The Reconsideration Panel reviewed each of the alleged errors and concluded no errors existed that would warrant reconsideration of the Board's decision.

| View Decision |

25/02/2004 -  Rose Bizuk and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local No. 110 and Westcor Services Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

19/02/2004 -  Joe Talbot and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, the Alberta and Northwest Territories (District of Mackenzie) Regional Council of Carpenters and Allied Workers and Martyn Piper - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

18/02/2004 -  Construction Workers Union (CLAC) Local No. 63 and Transline Ltd. and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488, Pipeline Contractors Association and Construction Labour Relations - an Alberta Association and Reid's Welding Inc., Flint Energy Services Ltd. and IPEC Resource Services Corp.

Registration - Bargaining - section 176(1)(b) - The Board concluded an agreement adopting limited provisions of a registration agreement and that was intended to be for a limited purpose and for a limited time was an agreement that fell under section 176(1)(b) as opposed to section 176(1)(a).

The Board received four certification applications from the Construction Workers Union, Local No. 63 ("CLAC") affecting Transline Ltd. ("Transline"). The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 (the "UA") argued the applications were untimely as the UA retained bargaining rights for employees of Transline through a predecessor company, Hat Pipelines Ltd. ("Hat"). Shortly after the commencement of the hearing into the UA's objections, Transline brought a summary dismissal application arguing the January 24th Agreement the UA held up as a bar to the certification applications could not operate as a bar because it had expired and/or did not cover the type of work contemplated by CLAC's certification applications. Having concluded the January 24th Agreement was intended to be a short term agreement providing terms and conditions of employment for a fixed period between an employer actually or customarily engaged in the construction sector and a group of trade unions in respect of work in the part of the construction industry set out in a registration certificate, the Board stated the question was whether the January 24th Agreement is "an agreement" under section 176(1)(a) ( an employer bound by the terms of registration agreement in full and caught by all its provisions) or 176(1)(b) (employers who are short term participants not normally engaged in the sector who are bound to the registration agreement only for the duration of the individual agreement struck with the trade union). The UA argued Transline was a section 176(1)(a) employer while Transline and CLAC argued it was a section 176(1)(b) employer.

The UA also alleged the Board exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias as a result of the Board's failure to adhere to the rules of natural justice.

Held, The January 24th Agreement specifically excluded every provision of the registration agreement but one, including its recognition provisions. The Board concluded the agreement was intended to be a short-term agreement that bound Transline to only those portions of the registration agreement identified and not to the whole of the registration agreement. Far from being a blanket acceptance of the registration agreement, it was an agreement with limited acceptance of the registration agreement for a limited purpose for a limited time. As a result, the Board concluded the Transline was a section 176(1)(b) employer and granted the summary dismissal application.

The Board dismissed the natural justice allegations concluding the Board had not breached the rules of procedural fairness.

| View Decision |

12/02/2004 -  Marc Saumure and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) Local 1112, Diane Hollingshead, Cam Sellick and Foremost Industries Inc. -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

11/02/2004 -  Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Firestone Energy Corporation -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

5/2/2004 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 v. Enmax Corporation, The Corporation of the City of Calary and Alberta Labour Relations Board - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal

Sale of business - Successor rights - s. 46 - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed without reasons the Union's application for leave to appeal an Alberta Court of Appeal decision upholding two decisions of the Board finding employees automatically transfer to a successor employer on a successorship.

ENMAX Corporation ("ENMAX") and the Corporation of the City of Calgary (the "City"), appealed a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench which overturned two decisions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board made under the successorship provision (s.46) of the Code. The Board decision at issue concluded employees of an employer caught by the successorship provisions of the Code automatically transfer to the successor employer and do not have the option of choosing to stay with the original employer and exercise whatever rights they may have under the original collective agreement. The Court of Queen's Bench found the Board's decision to be patently unreasonable. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal finding the Court of Queen's Bench failed to conclude that the interpretation of s.46 of the Code was capable of more than one interpretation reasonably supported by the legislation, facts and policy objectives of labour relations law. The Court found the Board's interpretation of the successorship provisions to not be patently unreasonable. The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38, (the "Union") filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

| View Decision |

05/02/2004 -  TransAlta Corporation and United Utility Workers' Association of Canada and TransAlta Utilities Corporation  -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

03/02/2004 -  Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 707 and Chinook Regional Health Authority, Palliser Health Region, Calgary Health Region, David Thompson Regional Health Authority, East Central Health, Capital Health, Aspen Regional Health Authority, Peace Country Health, Northern Lights Health Region, the Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, United Nurses of Alberta (various locals), Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Canadian Union of Public Employees (various locals), Alberta Mental Health Board and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955   -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

28/01/2004 -  Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 and United Nurses of Alberta and its Locals v. Alberta Labour Relations Board, Regional Health Authorities 1-9, Alberta Mental Health Board, Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 717 and Canadian Union of Public Employees and Its Locals - Court of Queen's Bench Decision 

Judicial Review - s.19(1) - The Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the unions' applications alleging the Board's decisions under the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 should be quashed on the basis they were tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 ("CEP") and the United Nurses of Alberta and its Locals ("UNA") sought judicial review of, effectively, all the decisions and actions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board relating to the implementation of the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 ("Bill 27"). The applicants contended the Board's decisions were tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Board thus requiring that all such decisions be quashed. Among other allegations, the applicants alleged inappropriate communication on the subject matter of Bill 27 between the Executive Branch of the Alberta Government and the Chair of the Alberta Labour Relations Board.

Held, The Court concluded the evidence did not disclose that a well informed person, looking at the matter realistically and practically would question the impartiality and independence of the Board or it members. The Court also concluded that the judicial review application was not timely with respect to some of the Board's decisions.

| View QB Decision |View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View Summary of Dispositions |

23/01/2004 -  Public Service Alliance of Canada - PSAC and Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Southern) Alberta  -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

16/01/2004 -  United Steelworkers of America, Local 5220 and GenAlta Recycling Inc.  -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

16/01/2004 -  Wei Quo and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 70, Kevin Jensen, Ewald Schwarz and Debra Grimaldi  -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

8/01/2004 - Robert Sawchuk and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146, Doug Gares and Melloy and Associates Ltd. -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

6/01/2004 - Mohamed Aden and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 373A and Lilydale Foods -  Letter Decision  

| View Decision |

Back