2005 Decisions

Decision Search

Earlier Decisions
Decisions Issued in 2001
Decisions Issued in 2002
Decisions Issued in 2003
Decisions Issued in 2004
Decisions Issued in 2006
Decisions Issued in 2007
Decisions Issued in 2008
Decisions of Interest


Decisions issued in 2005

23/12/2005 - International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 99 and Finning International Inc., Tracker Logistics Inc., National Automobile, Aerospace,Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-CANADA), Local No. 4050 -   Formal Decision

Successorship – s. 46 – The contracting out of the warehousing of Finning’s parts inventory without the transfer of capital, assets, equipment, managerial skills, employees or know how did not amount to a successorship.

Bargaining in Bad Faith – s. 60(1) – The Employer breached the duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose the decision to contract out work and the resulting layoff of employees once the notice to commence bargaining had been served.

Unfair Labour Practices – Employer – s. 147(3) – The Employer breached the statutory freeze provisions by failing to undertake the contracting out reasonably and in good faith. The delay in informing the employees of the decision once a notice to commence collective bargaining had been served and the reason for the contracting out (cost savings) led the Board to this conclusion.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 99 (the “Union”) sought a successorship declaration that Tracker Logistics Inc. (“Tracker”) is a successor employer to Finning Canada (“Finning”) a division of Finning International Inc. The Union also alleged Finning failed to bargain in good faith, changed terms and conditions of employment after being served with a notice to bargain, interfered with the representation of employees by the Union and refused to continue to employ persons because they exercised rights under the Code.

Held, The Board dismissed the Union’s successorship application on the basis virtually none of the usual factors the Board considers in determining whether a sale of a business has occurred were present in the arrangement entered into between Finning and Tracker. No part of Finning’s business has been disposed of to Tracker. The storage and warehousing of inventory is not capable of being defined and identified as a functioning entity severable from the whole of Finning’s business. Finning contracted out the warehousing of its parts inventory to Tracker without there being any transfer of capital, assets, equipment, managerial skills, employees or know-how.

The Board upheld the Union’s complaint alleging Finning breached the Code’s statutory freeze provisions. Finning failed to establish it acted in good faith in exercising its implied right to contract out work as part of its traditional rights of management. The delay in informing employees of the decision and the reason for the contracting out (cost savings) both demonstrated Finning failed to act reasonably and in good faith.

 The Board also upheld the Union’s bad faith bargaining complaint. The failure to disclose the decision to contract out work and the resulting layoff of employees once the notice to commence bargaining had been served was a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.

 Finally, the Board dismissed the Union’s complaint alleging the contracting out amounted to an interference with the Union’s representation of employees.

| View Decision |

22/12/2005 - International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 and Finning International Inc., Finning (Canada) Division of Finning International Inc. and O.E.M. Remanufacturing Company Inc. and Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Successorship –s. 46 – Common Employer – s. 47 - The Court held the Board’s reconsideration decision overturning successorship and common employer declarations was neither unreasonable nor patently unreasonable. The Board findings were supported by the evidence and were based on the rational application of the law in these areas. The Board held that while the transfer of capital may be a relevant consideration in a successorship analysis, in this case, the transfer did not come from the part of the business in which the union held bargaining rights and therefore could not support the successorship finding. The Court concluded this finding was neither unreasonable nor patently unreasonable. The panel also held it was an error to issue a common employer declaration in circumstances where there was virtually no control over the day-to-day management of the employees or work generating activities. The Court held this finding neither unreasonable nor patently unreasonable.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 (the “Union”) sought judicial review of a Board decision overturning a previous Board decision which had granted the Union’s application for successorship and common employer declarations. The Board’s decision to overturn the original successorship finding focused on the fact the infusion of capital which warranted the original finding did not come from the portion of the business for which the Union held bargaining rights. Addressing the common employer finding, the Board held the original panel erred by making a common employer finding where the alleged common employer exercised virtually no control or direction over the day-to-day management of employees or the working activities of the business. The Union alleged the Board was unreasonable or patently unreasonable in overturning the original decision. In particular, it alleged the Board failed to examine or properly examine the non-arm’s length aspect of the transaction including the infusion of capital by what was alleged to be the predecessor employer. It further alleged the Board adopted a new and more restrictive test for successorship and ignored other indicators of successorship. Finally, the Union argued the Board erred in focusing on the requirement of day-to-day management in its common employer analysis.

Held, The Board’s reconsideration decision was not patently unreasonable nor was it unreasonable. The Board fully and appropriately considered both the non-arm’s length nature of the transaction and the infusion of capital by the alleged predecessor employer. It adopted an approach to successorship in line with that used by other labour relations tribunals and Canadian courts which included appropriate consideration of other indicators of successorship. Finally, the Board’s conclusion regarding the requirement for day-to-day control in common employer declarations was neither unreasonable nor patently unreasonable. There was evidence the two entities in question were separate stand alone businesses with no day-to-day control by one over the other.

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

21/12/2005 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Firestone Energy Corporation and Suncor Energy Inc. and First North Catering and Rentokil Initial Canada Limited, c.o.b. as Initial Security and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

20/12/2005 - Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters, and Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Employees Association of Calgary and the Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Judicial Review – s. 12(4) - Jurisdiction – s. 12(1) – The Board was incorrect when it concluded the Employer’s Calgary freight forwarding operations fell within provincial jurisdiction. The mere existence of an overarching corporate control structure is insufficient in itself to characterize the company and its provincial branches as a single federal undertaking falling within federal jurisdiction. Absent a physical involvement by employees or the company in the physical business of the interprovincial carriage of goods, there is insufficient reason to displace the dominant presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. (“Fastfrate”) sought judicial review of a Board decision finding its Calgary freight forwarding operations fell within federal as opposed to provincial jurisdiction. The company’s basic operational model included the receipt and consolidation of freight in Calgary; contracts for interprovincial truck/rail movement of freight with third party carriers; and the receipt, deconsolidation and delivery of freight at the destination location. The Board held Fastfrate’s operations were most appropriately viewed as a single undertaking with a dominant interprovincial purpose as opposed to a series of effectively independent intraprovincial undertakings.

 Held, Fastfrate’s application was granted. The Board was incorrect when it concluded Fastfrate’s operations were interprovincial in nature. The Court held that where an interdependence between the provincial operation and the interprovincial truck/rail provider cannot be established, direct physical involvement of employees or company in the operation or work of the federal undertaking (ie. the contractual interprovincial truck/rail carrier) must be present. Where no such physical involvement in the interprovincial carriage of goods exists, the undertaking will be found to be provincial in nature. The mere existence of Fastfrate’s overarching corporate control structure is insufficient in itself to characterize the company and its provincial branches as a single federal undertaking.

| View Decision | View Decision |

19/12/2005 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 affecting Discovery House Family Violence Prevention Society - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

15/12/2005 - The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3911 v. The Athabasca University Governing Council and The Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Employees – Status Determination – s. 12(3)(o) – The Court dismissed the Union’s application arguing the Board erred in finding out-of-province employees were not part of the Union’s certificate covering non-designated academic employees.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3911 (the “Union”) applied for a determination that tutors and markers working for the Athabasca Governing Council (the “Employer”) but residing and working outside Alberta were part of the Union’s certificate covering non-designated academic employees of the Employer. The Board denied the Union ’s application. The Union proceeded with a judicial review application alleging the Board breached the principles of natural justice by relying on a previous Board decision the parties had not raised and which the parties did not have specific opportunity to comment on, committed reviewable error in its substantive conclusions and reached a decision which violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Held, The Union’s judicial review application was dismissed. The Board did not breach the rules of natural justice by relying on a previous Board decision in coming to its substantive conclusions. Where the parties have been provided an opportunity to propose, prosecute and prove a right of interest, there is no requirement on the Board, having discovered a useful precedent, to require further argument from the parties on the precedent. Nor did the Board commit a reviewable error with respect to the substantive portion of its decision. The Board’s decision regarding the employees’ place of employment was not patently unreasonable. Finally, the argument that the Board’s decision violated the Charter cannot be raised for the first time on judicial review absent exceptional circumstances which did not exist in this case.

| View Decision | View Decision |

25/11/2005 -   Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Jim Bendfeld and Jan Dezentje, Gordon Dombrosky, Denis Roy, William Warchow, General Presidents Maintenance Committee and Delta Catalytic Inc. -   Formal Decision

Damages – s. 17(1) – The Board awarded damages to the complainants attempting to put them in the same position they would have been in but for the Union’s breach of its duty to fairly represent the complainants. The Board commented that a claim that exceeded the upper limit of two years as generally used in wrongful dismissal cases was not justified either in principle or on the facts of this case.

The Board previously found the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 424 (the “ Union”) had breached its duty of fair representation. As part of that decision, the Board ordered the complainants be compensated for a sum equal to 1/3 of their financial losses as a result of their lost opportunity to arbitrate their grievances. The Board reserved jurisdiction to quantify the damages if the parties could not reach agreement. This decision addresses the quantification of those damages.

 Held, Applying generally the principle that the complainants should be put in the same position they would have been in but for the Union’s breach of its duty to fairly represent them subject to the duty to mitigate any such losses, the Board awarded the complaints 1/3 of the amount it felt the complainants would have been awarded had the matter proceeded to arbitration taking into account the duty to mitigate as well as negative contingencies affecting their loss. In discussing the applicable principles, the Board stated a claim that exceeded the upper limit of two years generally awarded in wrongful dismissal cases was not justified either in principle or on the facts of this case.

| View Decision | View Previous Decision |

25/11/2005 -  Audrey Allen, William Bentley, Faye Chorney, B.C. Desai, Po Y. Fok, Cynthia Formaniuk, Larry Fraser, Cecile Gartner, George Gordon, Joseph Huba, Allan Jones, James Kocyba, Sai-Bon Lee, Patrick Malcolmson, Donald Maltias, Harold Matheson, Robert Osokin, Christine Oskanoski, George Parsons, Beverly Peterson, Satwant Rakhra, Alfred Richards, Robert Rosenberg, Fernando Raul Scherpenisse, Duane Sears, Volesh Shaikh, Normin Simpson, Robin Sundstrum, Christine Vaillancourt, Donna Vanderbrink, Daniel Warkentin, Edward Waud And Nyuk-Ken Wong and Crown in the Right of Alberta and The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees -  Formal Decision

Arbitration – Standing – sections 136(e) and 137(1) – Individuals affected by the terms of a collective agreement are not parties to the agreement and, as a result, are not entitled to bring an application for the appointment of a single arbitrator to resolve what the individuals claimed is a grievance arising out of the collective agreement binding them.

Numerous individuals (the “Applicants”) applied under section 44 of the Public Service Employee Relations Act (“PSERA”) and section 137(1) of the Labour Relations Code (the “Code”) to have the Board appoint a single arbitrator to resolve what the Applicants say is a grievance arising out of a collective agreement binding on them. The Crown in Right of Alberta (the “Employer”) and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (the “ Union”) oppose the application on the basis the Applicants have no standing or entitlement to apply for such an appointment.

Held, The Board dismissed the application. Whether the application for the appointment of a single arbitrator was treated as made pursuant to section 136(e) or section 137(1) of the Code, the application must be made by one of the parties to the collective agreement. As the only parties to the collective agreement are the Employer and the Union, the Applicants had no standing to make the application.

| View Decision |

18/11/2005 - United Nurses of Alberta #213 and Age Care Investments (Beverly) Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

14/11/2005 - Finning (Canada) A Division of Finning International Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 99 - Formal Decision

Bargaining in Bad Faith – s. 60(1)(b) – The Board dismissed the Employer’s complaint alleging the Union’s conduct in bargaining amounted to bad faith bargaining. Allegations of a promise to vote an Employer “bottom line” offer were most likely explained by a misunderstanding between the parties as opposed to a failure to bargain in good faith. Other changes in the Union’s bargaining position, while regrettable and unhelpful, did not amount to a change in position that was truly destructive of the bargaining process.

Finning (Canada) Division of Finning International Inc. (“Finning”) alleges the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 (the “Union”) failed to bargain in good faith by failing to make reasonable efforts to bring a collective agreement to a conclusion. In particular, Finning alleges the Union enticed it to enter into a “bottom line” offer by promising to recommend it to its membership and by a late change in bargaining on six items.

Held, The Board dismissed Finning’s allegations. The evidence failed to demonstrate the Union had made any commitment to vote and recommend Finning’s “bottom line” offer, sight unseen. The Board viewed the most likely explanation for the different versions of events to be a misunderstanding between the parties and a failure to be precise about the specific agreement reached. The Board found that while the Union made regrettable and counterproductive changes to its bargaining positions, they did not amount to a violation of section 60 of the Code. While changes to bargaining positions may demonstrate a failure of reasonable efforts to reach a collective agreement or of a desire to not reach a collective agreement, they do not necessarily amount to a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith. Such a finding is limited to cases where the change in position is truly destructive of the bargaining process and includes consideration of both the magnitude of the change and the stage at which the changes are introduced. Short of a point where a collective agreement has been reached, a change in position must represent a major expansion or redefinition of the bargaining dispute before intervention by the Board is advisable. Such was not the case on the facts of this case.

| View Decision |

10/11/2005 - Health Sciences Association of Alberta and Agecare Investments Limited - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

10/11/2005 - Aaron Pedrick and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146, Doug Geres, Morgan Fedak, Grant Jacobs and Horton CBI, Limited- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

04/11/2005 - Finning (Canada) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

02/11/2005 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 1118 and BakeMark Ingredients Canada Limited - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

02/11/2005 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local Union No. 401 and Mark Kovatch and Westfair Foods Ltd., Bruce Kent, Elizabeth Lietz, Scott Short, Merv Newton, Gilbert Robinson and Christina Bulis - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

02/11/2005 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1007 and EPCOR Utilities Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

02/11/2005 - Alberta Bingo Supplies Ltd. and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4655 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

01/11/2005 -  Finning (Canada), Division of Finning International Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 - Directives

| View Directives |

31/10/2005 -   Tracker Logistics Inc. and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 - Letter, Directives, Notice

| View Directives | View Notice |

27/10/2005 -   Finning (Canada), Division of Finning International Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 - Letter Decision

| View Decision | View Directive |

27/10/2005 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

27/10/2005 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Court of Queen's Bench - Transcript

Lakeside Feeders Ltd. (the “Employer’) sought to have the Court of Queen’s Bench find the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 (the “Union”) in civil contempt for failing to obey a court order without lawful excuse. Although the Court adjourned the contempt application to allow the Union time to respond, it considered whether the union had breached the Board’s order that had been filed with the Court.

Held, The Court held the Union and others had breached the filed order and granted certain injunctive relief aimed at remedying these breaches. In particular, the Court ordered that Canadian Food Inspection Agency Officials be granted immediate access to the plant without delay. The Court, using authority granted to it by section 91 of the Code, also referred the matter of access for the food inspection officials as well as other matters relating to the destruction of property and cumulative delay back to the Board for further consideration.

| View Decision | View Directive |

26/10/2005 -  Tracker Logistics Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 -Directive

| View Directive |

26/10/2005 -  Lakeside Feeders Ltd. and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 - Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rawlins - Transcript

| View Decision |

26/10/2005 -  Lakeside Feeders Ltd. and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 -Letter Decision

| View Decision |

24/10/2005 -  Chemco Electrical Contractors Ltd., Comstock Canada Ltd., Casca Electric Ltd., Lockerbie & Hole Contracting Ltd., PCL Intracon Power Inc., Altair Contracting Ltd., Kellogg, Brown & Root Canada Company and Jacobs Catalytic Ltd. and Certain Employees of the Employers represented by Construction and General Workers' Union, Local 92, International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local 110, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146, General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 424, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental and Reinforcing Workers, Local No. 720, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 - Interim Orders

| View Order | View Order | View Order | View Order |
| View Order | View Order | View Order | View Order |

21/10/2005 -  International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Lodge 146; and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 and Local 496 Operating as the Quality Control Council of Canada affecting Cooperheat-MQS Canada Inc. - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit – Appropriateness – s. 34(1)(c) – The Board rejected the request to create a new craft-based bargaining unit for heat treating technicians. The existing non-destructive testing unit is sufficiently flexible to include heat treating technicians.

Two certification applications brought by the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Lodge 46 and the United Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 and Local 496 raise the issue whether the Board should create a new craft-based bargaining unit for heat treating technicians in the construction industry. If the Board is prepared to create this new unit, a subsidiary issue is which sector would be appropriate for the new unit – specialty construction or general construction.

Held, After considering numerous factors including the construction bargaining legislation, employee wishes, past certification and bargaining practices, the employer’s and its views, jurisdictional matters and community of interest including the viability of the bargaining unit, the Board denied the request to create a new standard construction bargaining unit for heat treating technicians. The Board does not favour granting a new standard bargaining unit when employees can be appropriately represented within the existing standard bargaining unit structure. In this case, the various factors considered including the close connection between heat treating and non-destructive testing employees and the Board’s cautious approach to creating new construction bargaining units resulted in the Board concluding the current standard bargaining unit for non-destructive testing employees was sufficient flexible to include heat treating technicians. As a result, the Board dismissed the request to create a new craft-based bargaining unit for heat treating technicians. The Board sought further submissions on the issue of whether to allow the unit applied for to be amended.

| View Decision |

20/10/2005 - Lakeside Feeders Ltd. and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local No. 401 - Findings and Directives

| View Findings & Directives | View QB Transcript |

18/10/2005 - Lakeside Feeders Ltd. and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local No. 401 - Findings and Directives

| View Findings & Directives | View Notice | View QB Transcript |

18/10/2005 - Certain Employees of Raydon Rentals Ltd. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 and Raydon Rentals Ltd. - Formal Decision

Recognition – Voluntary – s. 42 – The voluntary recognition of the Union by the Employer was invalid as the Union did not have the support of the Employer’s employees.

Certain employees of Raydon Rentals Ltd. (the “Employer”) applied for revocation of the bargaining rights held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 (the “Union”). Certain employees also filed an application for a determination of whether there was a valid collective agreement between the Employer and the Union. They took the position the voluntary recognition of the Union by the Employer was invalid because the Union did not in fact represent the employees at the time of the voluntary recognition and the collective agreement was never ratified by the employees. The revocation application was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the determination application.

Held, The voluntary recognition of the Union was invalid. Signing an application for membership with the Union in circumstances where the employees would lose their jobs if they did not sign is not evidence of genuine employee support for the Union. Similarly, evidence the Union administered the collective agreement including filing grievances on behalf of employees was not evidence of genuine employee support. Given the employees were unaware the Union was seeking to represent them, were not represented on the Union bargaining team, were never asked if they wanted to be represented by the Union, the collective agreement was presented to the employees as a fait accompli and was never presented for ratification and the Union never applied to obtain a bargaining certificate despite its covenant to do so in the Memorandum of Agreement, the Board concluded the Union did not have the support of the Employer’s employees and, as a result, that the voluntary recognition agreement was invalid.

| View Decision |

| View Decision |

13/10/2005 - Lakeside Feeders Ltd. and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local No. 401 - Amended Findings and Directives

| View Findings & Directives | View QB Transcript |

13/10/2005 - Lakeside Feeders Ltd. and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local No. 401 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

12/10/2005 - Lakeside Feeders Ltd. and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local No. 401 - Findings and Directives

| View Findings & Directives | View Notice | View QB Transcript |

05/10/2005 - Calgary Police Association and David Ellement and The City of Calgary and Jack Beaton- Letter Decision

| View Decision | View Earlier Decision |

04/10/2005 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

03/10/2005 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Formal Decision

Employers – Interference with Employees’ Rights – s. 149(a)(iii) - The Employer contravened section 149(a)(iii) as a result of terminating an employee, in part, because of anti-union animus.

Lakeside Feeders Ltd. (the “Employer”) terminated the complainant for errors she committed while working in the ground beef area in the Employer’s plant. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 (the “Union”) alleged the termination was a direct or indirect result of the complainant’s membership and involvement in the Union and, as a result, was in contravention of the Alberta Labour Relations Code.

 Held, The Employer contravened section 149(a)(iii) of the Code when it terminated the complainant. The termination was motivated at least in part by anti-union animus. Her unequal treatment when compared to other employees who made similar mistakes and the composition of the discipline committee resulted in the Board concluding at least one of the reasons for her dismissal was a strong desire on behalf of the Employer to rid itself of Union members.

| View Decision |

30/09/2005 - Rail Workers Association of Canada and Alstom Transport Services and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union, CAW Local 101 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

29/09/2005 - Brenda Eichhorst and The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

27/09/2005 -The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and The Good Samaritan Society (A Lutheran Social Service Organization) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

15/09/2005 - "The Complainant" and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 and The City of Calgary - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

14/09/2005 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 v. Firestone Energy Corporation, Suncor Energy Inc., First North Catering and Rentokil Initial Canada Limited c.o.b. as initial Security, Wayne Prins and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

09/09/2005 - Miscellaneous Employees, Teamsters Local Union 987 of Alberta and Federated Co-operatives Limited - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

02/09/2005 - National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) Local No. 4001 and Alberta Railnet Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

26/08/2005 - International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955 v. AC&T Limited Partnership - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit – Appropriateness – s. 34(1)(c) – The Board held the fact the parties may have chosen to have the terms of a collective agreement for one sector apply to work the Board treats as falling within a different sector is not a proper basis for the Board to depart from its longstanding policies regarding sector definitions in the Roadbuilding and Heavy Construction sector. The Board allowed an amendment to the bargaining unit applied for allowing the application to be made for the Roadbuilding and Heavy Construction sector.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 955 (the “ Union”) applied for certification of a group of employees of AC & T Limited Partnership (the “Employer”) described as General Construction Operating Engineers. The Board Officer found the work performed by the employees was in the nature of site preparation and, therefore, fell in the Roadbuilding and Heavy Construction sector rather than the General Construction sector. The Union objected to the Board Officer’s finding on the basis the Roadbuilding and Heavy Construction collective agreement does not apply to the work because its scope clause specifically excludes the industrial construction at issue. As a result, the Board’s bulletins and decisions must reflect reality in the workplace including the position the work in question has been treated by the industry as general construction work.

Held, The Board held the work in question fell within Roadbuilding and Heavy Construction work as defined by Information Bulletin #11. The sector definitions found in Information Bulletin #11 are clear and unambiguous and have existed for many years with no application by the Union or any other party to suggest they raise a problem regarding which sector covers site excavation and preparation. The fact the parties may have chosen to have the terms of a collective agreement for one sector apply to work the Board treats as falling within a different sector is not a proper basis for the Board to depart from its longstanding policy. As a result, the Board found the bargaining unit applied for was not appropriate for collective bargaining. The Board granted the Union’s application to amend the bargaining unit to “Roadbuilding and Heavy Construction Operating Engineers.”

| View Decision |

24/08/2005 - Edith Hogarth v. The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Capital Health - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

24/08/2005 - Ahmad Hamid and Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 47 and Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Ltd. - Formal Decision

Union ’s – Fair Representation Duty – s. 153(1) - The Board dismissed a second duty of fair representation complaint on the basis the complaint had already been heard and decided by the Board.

The complainant filed a second duty of fair representation complaint against the Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union Local 47 (the “Union”) alleging the Union breached its duty of fair representation under section 153 of the Labour Relations Code. Alternatively, the complainant sought reconsideration of the remedy ordered in the original decision granting his application. The original decision held the Union breached the duty of fair representation provisions of the Code and referred the matter to arbitration. The complainant’s grievance was dismissed by the arbitration board.

| View Decision |

22/08/2005 - University of Alberta Non-Academic Staff Association and Board of Governors, University of Alberta - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

22/08/2005 - Construction Workers Union (CLAC) Local No. 63 and Travco Industrial Housing Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

16/08/2005 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and The Good Samaritan Society (A Lutheran Social Service Organization) - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit – Consolidation – s.41 – The Board granted an application for consolidation on the basis the proposed unit was consistent with the bargaining structure being employed by the parties and on the basis it would add stability to this structure.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (the “ Union”) applied under section 41 of the Code to consolidate a number of bargaining unit certificates affecting the Good Samaritan Society (the “Employer”). The applications related to bargaining units in the branch of the Employer’s operations called Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities.

Held, The Board granted the Union’s application. Since an earlier unsuccessful consolidation application, the parties have gone through four rounds of collective bargaining, have bargained at a single table, have endorsed a common collective agreement approach to their relationship and have gone through four open periods. Relying on the bargaining history and the Board’s policy preference for larger inclusive bargaining units, the Board found there was a valid labour relations purpose for the exercise of the Board’s discretion in favour of consolidation. Granting the application was consistent with the bargaining structure adopted by the parties and would add stability to the current bargaining structure. There were no concerns on the facts of this case about the maturity of the bargaining relationship, bargaining unit appropriateness or an improper purpose for the application.

| View Decision |

11/08/2005 - Westfair Foods Ltd. and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

10/08/2005 - Mike Reinhart and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (International), Larry Schell, Phil Flemming, Vair Clendenning and James Watson - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

03/08/2005 - Liu Zhi-Yong and Xinlong Cheung and United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 5885, Barry Grunerud, Jasbir Sangha and Quality Steel Foundries Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

29/07/2005 - United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 and Capital Health - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

19/07/2005 - Gilles Caron and Alberta Union of School Employees and Conseil Scolaire Centre-Nord - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

13/07/2005 - International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 and Brandt Tractor Ltd. - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit – Appropriateness – s.34(12)(c) – The Board dismissed the Union’s certification application on the basis the units applied for would “carve-out” smaller units from a larger existing unit. Board policy supported this result and no compelling reasons existed to justify a conclusion contrary to this policy.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 (the “ Union”) made three separate applications for certifications for employees of Brandt Tractor Ltd. (the “Employer”). At the time of the application, the employees were represented by the Pardee Equipment Employees Association (the “Association”). The three applications were: a group of employees at the Grand Prairie branch; a group of employees at the Fort McMurray branch; and a group of employees at the Grand Prairie and Fort McMurray Branch. The primary issue addressed by the Board was whether the proposed bargaining units were appropriate taking into account the pre-existing bargaining relationship between the Employer and the Association.

 Held, The Union’s application was dismissed on the basis the units applied for were not appropriate for collective bargaining. While the units applied for may have been appropriate in a first certification scenario, given the Association and the Employer were operating under one bargaining unit covering Edmonton, Grand Prairie and Fort McMurray the effect of the applications would be to “carve-out” smaller units from the larger single unit. The Board held this was contrary to Board policy and that no compelling reasons existed to justify a conclusion contrary to this policy.

| View Decision |

04/07/2005 - Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Employees Association of Calgary v. Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. and General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 - Formal Decision

Board – Jurisdiction – s.12 (1) – The labour relations of the freight forwarding portion of the Employer’s business fall within federal as opposed to provincial jurisdiction. The operations were part of one interprovincial undertaking as opposed to a series of separate local undertakings.

The Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Employees Association of Calgary (the “Association”) sought several declarations of status under section 12 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code. The issue faced by the Board was whether labour relations at the Calgary location of Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc. (the “Fastfrate”) are subject to the authority of the Alberta Labour Relations Board or the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Put another way, do the labour relations in question fall within provincial or federal jurisdiction.

Held, The labour relations fall within federal jurisdiction. Relying on the test of unity of ownership, purpose and control, the Board held the character of Fastfrate’s core freight forwarding business was one interprovincial undertaking that uses third party contactors for an intermediate step in its operations as opposed to a series of separate local undertakings connected by third party interprovincial carriers. As a result, the operations fall within federal as opposed to provincial jurisdiction.

| View Decision | View Decision |

29/06/2005 - 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 |

24/06/2005 -  International Association of Fire Fighters and City of Airdrie- Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit – Appropriateness – s.34(1)(c) – s.35(2) – The Board dismissed the Union’s certification application. All firefighters (full-time, part-time and casual) must be included in the same bargaining unit.

The International Association of Fire Fighters (the “Union”) applied for certification as bargaining agent for “all full time fire fighters” employed with the City of Airdrie Emergency Services department. The Employer objected to the application raising a number of objections including the Union did not meet the definition of a “trade union” as defined by the Code; the Board Officer failed to properly interpret section 35(2) of the Code by failing to include part-time and casual firefighters in the bargaining unit; and even in the absence of section 35(2), a unit of employees restricted to only full-time firefighters is inappropriate based on the community of interest principle.

Held, The Board dismissed the application for certification on the basis the unit was inappropriate for collective bargaining and the Union lacked the requisite support for the only appropriate unit being “All Firefighters”. Section 35(2) of the Code mandates that “all firefighters of an employer shall be included in one bargaining unit.” To interpret the section otherwise would not only offend the proper interpretation of the section but would be contrary to long held Board policy that full-time, part-time, and casual employee should jointly be included in the same “all employee” bargaining unit. It would also effectively eliminate the right to collectively bargain for the part-time and casual employees assigned to fire protection and prevention duties. The requirement that firefighters be “assigned exclusively to fire protection and fire prevention duties” does not mean that a person employed elsewhere in the City in another capacity cannot, on a part-time basis, perform firefighting work and be included in the bargaining unit so long as when they are working for the fire department, they are assigned exclusively to these duties. Finally, the Board held the Union met the definition of a union found in s.1(1)(x) of the Code.

| View Decision |

21/06/2005 -  Northern Lights Health Region and Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local Union 707 - Formal Decision

Reconsideration – s. 12(4) - Bargaining Unit – Exclusions – Challenges - The Board granted the application to reconsider the wording of a certificate to exclude previously unorganized employees. The Board concluded the transitional provisions of Bill 27 that required a move from five to four functional bargaining units were not intended to organize these previously unorganized employees.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers of Canada, Local 707 (the “Union”) held a certificate as bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the Northern Lights Health Region (the “Region”) described as “All employees when employed in general support services.” The Region sought to have the certificate reconsidered to exclude from the bargaining unit those employees who prior to the implementation of the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 (“Bill 27”) were not represented by a union. The Board declaration made it clear that only previously unionized employees were included in the certificate. The draft certificate contained no such exclusion, and as the no objection was raised, the final certificate was signed in that form. The Union objected to the Region’s application.

Held, The Board granted the Region’s application. Bill 27 did not intended in the transition process of moving from five to four functional bargaining units to organize the unorganized. Union’s remain free in the post-transitional phase of Bill 27 to organize the unorganized by applying to certify a unit of “all employees of a region employed in general support services” including those who are not represented by a trade union.

| View Decision |

21/06/2005 -  Northern Lights Health Region and Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local Union 707 - Formal Decision

| View Decision |

17/06/2005 -  Tom Stone and the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local No. 110 and Hardy Jenson - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

14/06/2005 -  AC&T Limited Partnership and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

07/06/2005 - Calgary Police Association and David Ellement and The City of Calgary and Jack Beaton - Formal Decision

Board – Jurisdiction – s. 36(1)(a) – Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act – The Board has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under s.36 of the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act where it is alleged the discipline is motivated in whole or in part by an intention to interfere with the formation or administration of the police association.

The Calgary Police Association (the “CPA”) filed an unfair labour practice complaint with the Board alleging the City of Calgary and the Chief of Police violated various sections of the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act. The City and the Chief of Police argued that as the matter related to discipline, the Board did not have jurisdiction to address the complaint. The Chief of Police further argued that in the exercise of his official duties as chief of police, he does not act on behalf of the City and, as a result, the Board did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Held, The Board dismissed the preliminary objection advanced by the City and the Chief of Police that the Board did not have jurisdiction to address the matter. The Board has jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint to determine whether the discipline breached the unfair practices sections of the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act. The Board rejected the argument the Chief was not acting on the City’s behalf for the purposes of section 36 of the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act.

| View Decision |

07/06/2005 - Finning International Inc., Finning (Canada) Division of Finning International Inc. and O.E.M. Remanufacturing Company Inc. - Formal Decision

Reconsideration – s.12(4) – Sale of Business - Successorship Rights – s.46(1) – Spin Offs - Common Employer – s.47(1) – The Board overturned a previous decision of the Board finding OEM was a successor to Finning International and secondly, Finning International, OEM and Rebuilding Enterprises Inc. were one employer for the purposes of the Code. There was no transfer of a business or part of a business from the predecessor to the alleged successor. The Original Panel also erred by making a common employer declaration when Finning International exercised virtually no control or direction over the day-to-day management of employees or the work generating activities.

Finning (Canada), a Division of Finning International Inc. (“Finning Canada”), Finning International Inc. (“Finning International”) and OEM Remanufacturing Company Inc. (“OEM”) sought reconsideration of a Board decision (“the Original Decision”) which found OEM was a successor employer to Finning International and secondly, that Finning International, OEM and Rebuilding Enterprises Inc. were one employer for the purposes of the Labour Relations Code. The Applicants’ argued the Original Panel erred in finding the transfer of capital between Finning International and OEM was a relevant consideration in determining whether a successorship occurred. They further argued high-level strategic control cannot be a factor in determining whether there is common control or direction. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 (“the Union”) argued the Original Panel’s decisions contained no errors that would justify reconsideration.

Held, The Board overturned the Original Decision finding neither the successorship nor the common employer declarations ought to have been granted. Addressing the successorship issue, the Board concluded that while the transfer of capital may be a relevant consideration, the Original Panel erred in finding a successorship when the capital came from Finning International and not Finning Canada, the portion of the business for which the Union held bargaining rights. Fundamentally, the Original Panel utilized a successorship analysis that did not distinguish between Finning International and the unionized part of the business alleged to have been transferred – the Component Rebuild Centre operated by Finning Canada. Addressing the common employer finding, the Board concluded the Original Panel erred by making a common employer declaration where Finning International exercised virtually no control or direction over the day-to-day management of employees or the work generating activities.

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

27/05/2005 - Mike Reinhart and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (International), Larry Schell, Phil Flemming, Vair Clendenning and James Watson - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

25/05/2005 - The Alberta Teachers' Association and Medicine Hat Catholic Separate Regional Division #20 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

20/05/2005 - Mike Reinhart and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and its Local Union 424, Phil Flemming, Larry Schell, James Watson and Vair Clendenning - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

19/05/2005 - National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local No. 4325 and Canadian Pacific Hotels Corporation - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit – Appropriateness – s.34(1)(c) – The Board found a proposed bargaining unit including bell desk employees and grounds and maintenance employees to be inappropriate for collective bargaining.

The National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local No. 4325 (“the Union”) requested the Board exercise it reconsideration power by including bell desk employees working at the Canadian Pacific Hotels Corporation, Chateau Lake Louise (“the Employer”) included in its current certificate covering grounds and maintenance employees.

Held, The Board dismissed the Union’s application on the basis the unit was not appropriate for collective bargaining. The bell desk employees and the grounds and maintenance employees did not have sufficient community of interest to allow the two groups of employees to be included within a single bargaining unit. In addition to being parts of different divisions and departments with their own shift schedules, meetings and budgets, the two groups of employees have substantially different work responsibilities. While grounds and maintenance employees are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the hotel’s grounds and facilities, bell desk employees are customer and service oriented, responsible for greeting guests, opening doors, parking their vehicles, dealing with luggage and generally being helpful to and collegial with all guests of the hotel.

| View Decision |

17/05/2005 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

06/05/2005 - The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge No. 99 and Finning International Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

05/05/2005 - International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Lodge 146; and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 and Local 496 Operating as the Quality Control Council of Canada and Team Cooperheat-MQS Canada Inc. - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit – Appropriateness – s.34(1)(c) – The Board found an “all employee” unit to be appropriate where the bulk of employees were performing large scale maintenance shut down work as heat treatment technicians.

The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Lodge 146 (“Lodge 146”) and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 (“Local 488”) filed three applications for certification affecting Team Cooperheat-MQS Canada Inc. (“the Employer”). The units applied for were: All Maintenance Heat Treating Technicians; Non-construction Heat Treating Technicians; and All employees except office, clerical, sales and construction. The Employer maintained the “all employee unit” was in appropriate. The Board Officer’s report found the bulk of employees were performing large-scale maintenance shut-down work. Two employees were performing minor maintenance and repair work – one in the shop and one in a plant setting.

Held, The Board found the “all employee” unit appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case. After reviewing Information Bulletin #11 setting out the Board’s policies for maintenance and non-construction units, the Board concluded that while the Board has maintenance and non-construction policies endorsing craft-based bargaining units in circumstances that appear to apply, these policies must give way in appropriate circumstances which the Board found existed in this case. While a craft based unit might be more appropriate, an “all employee” unit is an appropriate unit.

| View Decision |

29/04/2005 - "The Complainant" v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 and The City of Calgary - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

29/04/2005 - Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Triton Fabrication Services Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

21/04/2005 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

19/04/2005 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Firestone Energy Corporation, Suncor Energy Inc., First North Catering and Rentokil Initial Canada Limited c.o.b. as Initial Security, Wayne Prins and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

19/04/2005 - Sam Post and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

07/04/2005 - International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 and Finning International Inc., Finning (Canada) Division of Finning International Inc. and O.E.M. Remanufacturing Company Inc. - Formal Decision

Sale of Business – Successor Rights – s. 46(1) – The Board concluded a new business operating in the heavy equipment component rebuild market business that was 100% owned and financed by a predecessor business in the market was a successor employer to the predecessor.

Employers – Related – s. 47(1) – The Board found Finning and O.E.M. Reman. to be common employers based on an operational relationship and interdependence, common ownership and financial control and Finning’s control over O.E.M. Reman.’s management through the terms of a Joint Venture Agreement.

Finning International Inc. announced the closure of a component rebuild centre operated by Finning Canada, an unincorporated division of Finning International Inc. It proposed contracting out the work done in the rebuild centre to O.E.M. Remanufacturing Inc. (“O.E.M. Reman.”) O.E.M. Reman. is a joint venture between Finning and a third party through corporations owned by these parties. Finning possesses, as a joint venturer, financier or both, power over the operation of O.E.M. Reman. Day-to-day control is vested in the third party joint venturer. Finning financed 100% of the project and is the 100% beneficial owner of O.E.M. Reman. The International Association of Machinists and Allied Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 (the “Union”) contends the facts of the case engage both the successorship and common employer provisions of the Code. Finning argues these provisions of the Code are not engaged as the facts demonstrate an unobjectionable contracting out of Finning’s work and nothing more.

Held, The Board concluded the successor employer requirements of the Code had been satisfied and declared O.E.M. Reman. to be the successor to Finning in respect of the component rebuild centre work. There had been a “transfer” or “disposition” of a “business” or part of a business so that “control, management or supervision” of it had passed from Finning to O.E.M. Reman. In particular, the Board noted the fact Finning International owns 100% of O.E.M. Reman.’s common stock justified a high level of scrutiny of the business realities of their dealings. While the transaction had relatively few of the normal indicia that commonly characterize the transfer of a business, the infusion of equity capital from Finning to O.E.M. Reman. allowed O.E.M. Reman. to spring into existence as a fully functioning economic unit and was sufficient to support, along with a relinquishment by Finning of other portions of the business including the work, a successorship finding.

The Board also concluded the facts of the case justified the issuance of a common employer declaration. Finning and O.E.M. Reman. conduct “associated or related” businesses servicing heavy equipment and specifically Caterpillar heavy equipment. The Board also found the two companies operated under “common control or direction”. While the existence of significant operational relationship and interdependence and common ownership and financial control are significant indicia of a common employer situation, Finning’s control over O.E.M. Reman.’s management through the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement tipped the balance in favour of finding the two companies to be common employers.

| View Decision | View Decision | View Decision | View CA Decision |

05/04/2005 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union Nos. 1325, 2103 and 2010 and Travco Industrial Housing Ltd. and PTI Camp Installations   - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

01/04/2005 - International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 and AC&T Limited Partnership  - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

01/04/2005 - Consolidation Order - Registered Employers' Organizations and groups of Trade Unions affected by Registration Certificates  - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

31/03/2005 - Mike Reinhart and the Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (International), Larry Schell, Phil Flemming, Vair Clendenning and James Watson  - Formal Decision

Reconsideration – s. 12(4) - The Board amended its previous order in an attempt to clarify any misunderstanding as to the status of the elected, yet suspended, business manager.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 424 and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (International) sought to have previous Board Orders dealing with the employment status of Mr. Reinhart and the Unions’ disciplinary process as it related to Mr. Reinhart overturned. The Union argued Mr. Reinhart’s conduct at Union meetings that occurred after the Board’s previous orders justified this result. Mr. Reinhart sought to clarify his membership status with the Union to allow him to attend all Union meetings.

| View Decision |

26/03/2005 -Calgary Fire Fighters Association, Local 255, I.A.F.F. and The City of Calgary - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

23/03/2005 -United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Firestone Energy Corporation, Suncor Energy Inc., First North Catering, Rentokil Initial Canada Limited c.o.b. as Initial Security, Wayne Prins and CLAC, Local 63 - Interim Directive

| View Decision |

17/03/2005 - Alberta Teachers' Association and Alberta Labour Relations Board and Rocky View School Division No. 41 - Court of Queen's Bench - Transcript of Decision Portion Only

Judicial Review – s. 19(1) – The Court declined to hear the Union’s judicial review application, as the matter was moot.

The Alberta Teachers’ Association (the “Union”) sought judicial review of a Board decision declining to grant the Union’s request for interim injunctive relief regarding certain conduct of (the “Employer”) during collective bargaining negotiations. The conduct resulted in an arguably reduced ability of the Union to communicate with its members. The issue addressed by the Court was whether to hear the matter given the agreement of the parties that the matter was moot as a result of a communication protocol agreed to by the parties.

Held, The Court declined to hear the Union’s application, as the matter was moot. Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court found the question was not one of sufficient importance so as to require to Court to hear the matter.

| View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision |

17/03/2005 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 37 and The City of Airdrie - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

17/03/2005 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 and Accenture Business Services for Utilities Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

14/03/2005 - Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Travco Industrial Housing Ltd.- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

14/03/2005 - Capital Health and Royal Alexandra Hospital and United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 and Barbara Smith - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

09/03/2005 - Capital Health affecting The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

09/03/2005 - Mike Reinhart and the Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (International), Larry Schell, Phil Flemming, Vair Clendenning and James Watson -  Letter Decision

| View Decision |