2002 Decisions


2002 Decisions



	Home \|Site Map\| Search \|

2002 Decisions

Decision Search

Earlier Decisions
Decisions Issued in 2001
Decisions Issued in 2003
Decisions Issued in 2004
Decisions Issued in 2005
Decisions Issued in 2006
Decisions Issued in 2007
Decisions Issued in 2008
Decisions of Interest

Decisions issued in 2002

20/12/2002 Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 and The Corporation of the City of Calgary and Enmax Corporation - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

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

20/12/2002 Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 987 and Lethbridge Handi-Bus Association and Murray Campbell - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

18/12/2002 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Westfair Foods Limited - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

17/12/2002 -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 ALRB Decision | View QB Decision |

16/12/2002 - Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1990 and Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 1 and Greater Southern Catholic Francophone Education Region #4 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

11/12/2002 - The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Tri-Municipal Leisure Facility Corporation and The City of Spruce Grove - Letter Decision

| View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision |

11/12/2002 - Veronica London and Construction and General Workers' Union, Local No. 92, Blair Campbell, Larry Lebold, Patrick McGill and Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd./Athabasca Construction Joint Venture - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

11/12/2002 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 1118 and Catholic Social Services - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

11/12/2002 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 424, Richard Cronin, Athabasca Construction Joint Venture, Muskeg River Contractors, Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd., Graham Industrial Services Ltd. and Tracer Industries Canada Limited - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

05/12/2002 - Construction Labour Relations - An Alberta Association Roofers (Provincial) Trade Division and Construction and General Workers Union, Local 92 and Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 8 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Locals 1325 and 2103 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

04/12/2002 - Bosco Homes, A Society for Children and Adolescents and Alberta Labour Relations Board and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

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

03/12/2002 - Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Transline Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

02/12/2002 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Icom Refrigeration Corporation - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

28/11/2002 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Reid's Welding Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

27/11/2002 - Les Zawerucka and United Mine Workers of America, Local 1656 and Cardinal River Coals- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

27/11/2002 - The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and St. Joseph's Hospital and The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 875 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

22/11/2002 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Economic Development Edmonton and Allan Scott- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

20/11/2002 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Regional Health Authority 5, Aspen Regional Health Authority #11, Chinook Regional Health Authority and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 715 - Formal Decision

| View Decision |

18/11/2002 - Daniel Christian Busslinger and Local Union 424, International Union of Electrical Workers and Dave Munro and Athabasca Construction Joint Venture/Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd.- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

15/11/2002 - United Nurses of Alberta Local 115 and Calgary Health Region and Regional Fertility Program Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

15/11/2002 - Health Sciences Association of Alberta and Calgary Regional Health Authority and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - Formal Decision

| View Decision |

14/11/2002 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Economic Development Edmonton - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

13/11/2002 - The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, Capital Health Authority, Continuing Care Employers' Bargaining Association and Alberta Mental Health Board - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

13/11/2002 - Construction and General Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Reid's Welding Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

12/11/2002 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Economic Development Edmonton - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

06/11/2002 - Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 777 v. Bowes Publishers Ltd. - Formal Decision

| View Decision |

31/10/2002 - United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, Ed Schell, Philomena Wong, Gabriel Motshegoa, Dawn MacLean, Maria Walken-Brown and Economic Development Edmonton - Formal Decision

Bargaining in Bad Faith - s. 60 - The Employer went beyond hard bargaining and breached s. 60 of the Code by failing to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to enter into a collective agreement.

The Union and five individual's filed a series of unfair labour practice complaints against the Employer. The Union alleged that the Employer had failed to bargain in good faith and to make every reasonable effort to reach a collective agreement. The Union also alleged the Employer failed to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees. The five individual complainants allege they were discriminated against for being vocal and visible supporters of the Union. The Employer denied the allegations arguing that the Union had unrealistic expectations for a first collective agreement and that its treatment of employees was based on legitimate business reasons and not anti-union animus.Held, The Board's findings included the following: 1) The Employer's refusal to provide the Union with the names of its employees on the basis that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was not justified but was not found to be an unfair labour practice. The Board directed that the information be provided. 2) The Board upheld several complaints that members of the Union's bargaining committee were discriminated against because of their union involvement and dismissed several others. 3) The Employer breached s.60 of the Code by failing to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to enter into a collective agreement.

| View Decision |

29/10/02- Jan Dezentje, Gordon Dombrosky and Denis Roy and William Warchow, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 424, Catalytic Maintenance Inc., General Presidents Committee for Plant Maintenance in Canada and Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Appeal Decision

Unions - Fair Representation Duty - s.153 - Judicial Review - s.19 - The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that termination was an arguable case with a modest chance of success and had the required nexus to the collective agreement. It found this finding was not patently unreasonable. The Court also upheld the Board's finding that the alleged unreasonable application of the employer's leave of absence policy was arguable but not strong.

The appellants were members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 424 ("Local 424") and were employed by Catalytic Maintenance Inc. ("Catalytic") for the purposes of performing maintenance work. Their employment was governed by the terms of a collective agreement between Local 424 and Catalytic. Outside of the collective agreement, Catalytic maintained a policy of granting leaves of absence in lieu of layoffs where it was anticipated more work would be available shortly. This ensured employees who had been laid off returned to work for Catalytic rather than going to the bottom of the union hiring hall list. At a time when other employees were granted a leave of absence, the appellants were laid off. The appellants filed duty of fair representation complaints with the Labour Relations Board ("the L.R.B.") based on Local 424's failure to prosecute the grievance. The L.R.B. upheld the complaints on the basis that they had established an arguable case that their layoff was a termination of their employment or an unreasonable application of the employer's leave of absence policy. The respondent successfully sought judicial review of the L.R.B. decision on the basis that the determination that the leave of absence policy was drawn into the collective agreement was patently unreasonable. The appellants appeal from that decision.Held, The Court of Appeal overturned the Queen's Bench decision and in doing so reinstated the original L.R.B. decision. The L.R.B.'s determination that termination was an arguable case with a modest chance of success, was not patently unreasonable. As termination was specifically referenced in the collective agreement, the required nexus to the collective agreement was established. The Court of Appeal also stated that the Board's finding that alleged unreasonable application of the employer's leave of absence policy was arguable but not strong was without error. Finally, the Court concluded that the issue of remedy was squarely within the Board's jurisdiction and its findings in this regard were not patently unreasonable.

28/10/2002 - International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union No. 725 and Arrow Steel Reinforcing Inc. and A-1 Crane Services Inc.- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

28/10/2002 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Economic Development Edmonton and Allan Scott- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

24/10/2002 - United Nurses of Alberta, Local 121 and Health Sciences Association of Alberta v. Regional Fertility Program Inc. and Calgary Health Region and Certain Employees of Regional Fertility Program Inc. and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - Formal Decision

Sale of a business - Successor rights - s. 46 - The Board held that in the case of an expanded unit arising on successorship where the union did not have support from a majority of the members in the unit, a vote was necessary to determine if a majority of the employees wished to be represented by the union.

A successorship application arising from the transfer of the Calgary Health Region's fertility program to a new company, raised objections from a number of employees that they did not want any union representation. The issue was whether UNA, as the sole union wishing to represent employees in the expanded bargaining unit (the other two pre-successorship unions had stated they did not wish to be on a ballot to select a bargaining agent), should be declared the bargaining agent without a vote or whether a vote should be held with a "no union" option.Held, The Board held that s.46(2) granted it the authority to make whatever inquiries and take whatever votes the Board considers necessary to determine which, if any, trade union shall represent employees in the transferred undertaking. The question of what to do in this case was entirely a matter of Board discretion. The Board disregarded the employee petition and approached the case on the basis that UNA was deemed to possess the continuing support of its members in the single combined bargaining unit. On that basis, the combined unit called UNA's representative capacity into question as UNA represented only 16 of 34 employees in the expanded unit. As such, and emphasizing the principle of employee consent, the Board ordered a vote to determine if the majority of employees wanted UNA to represent them. Had UNA represented a majority of the employees in the expanded unit, UNA would have succeeded to bargaining rights for the combined workforce without the need for a vote.

| View Decision |

21/10/2002 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 and Certain Employees of Heart River Housing and Heart River Housing- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

21/10/2002 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta and Continuing Care Employers' Bargaining Association and Alberta Mental Health Board and Capital Health Authority and Alberta Federation of Labour and Health Sciences Association of Alberta and United Nurses of Alberta and Attorney General of Alberta - Formal Decision

Dues - Payment - s. 114 - Board determined that s. 114 did not violate a union member's freedom of association guaranteed by s. 2(d) of the Charter nor did the original s. 114 decision violate their right not to receive double punishment as guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter.

In May 2000, auxiliary nursing members of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (the "Union") engaged in a two day illegal strike. As a result of this strike, the Board issued directives ordering the Union and its members to stop the illegal activity. The Board's directives were filed with the Court of Queen's Bench. The Union and its members continued its strike in the face of the Board's directive which had been filed with the Court and, ultimately, were found in contempt of Court and fined $200,000. The Board also granted the employer's application under s.114 (formerly s.112) for an order suspending the deduction and remittance of union dues for a period of six months. The Union challenged the Board's s.114 order on the basis that granting the dues suspension would amount to double punishment in contravention of s. 11(b) of the Charter. The Union also argued that s.114 was invalid as the section violated s .2(d) of the Charter.Held, The Board found that s.114 does not violate the freedom of association rights contained in s. 2(d) of the Charter. Section 2(d) does not include constitutional protection for certain activities of unions such as engaging in strikes contrary to the legislative framework. In its most basic form, the employer does not have a constitutional obligation to facilitate the collection of dues. In addition, s.114 only temporarily restricted one of the union's activities where the union has engaged in an illegal strike. The Board also stated that the concept of "maintaining the union" as argued by the union failed to distinguish between bare associational activities protected by s. 2(d) and other unprotected legislatively regulated group activities. Finally, s. 2(d) was not violated as the section was directed at the union and not the individual employee. If wrong on this issue of whether s.114 violated s. 2(d), the Board found s.114 would be saved by s.1. The Board also found no violation of s.11(h) of the Charter. The matters before the Board were not the same matters that were before the Court.

18/10/2002 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2010 and Bruce Gibson and Heritage Truss & Design Ltd. and Larry Stone, Lorne Brennen and Jim Brennen Letter Decision

| View Decision |

16/10/2002 - Certain employees of Shaw Conference Centre and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Economic Development Edmonton - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

16/10/2002 - H. Lorne Watkinson and General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 and Richard Eichel and Lance Wallace- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

15/10/2002 - Pat Caputo and Miscellaneous Employees, Teamsters Local Union 987 of Alberta - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

02/10/2002 - Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 777 and Bowes Publishers Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

27/09/02 - General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 and Lafarge Canada Inc. - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit - Appropriateness - s. 35(1) - The Board held that a combined unit covering two plants was an appropriate unit. The Union could determine which application it wanted to proceed with up to the time of final argument.Votes - s. 58 - The Board determined that a re-vote was not necessary where the Notice to Vote did not indicate that a combined unit was a possible result of the vote.Exclusions - Challenges - s. 58(2) - The Board found two employees to not exercise managerial functions and included them in the bargaining unit.

In the context of three certification applications, the Board addressed the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and which application should proceed in the event more than one of the units applied for was appropriate, the inclusion of several employees within the bargaining unit and whether one employee was improperly denied an opportunity to vote in the representation vote. The Board also addressed the issue of whether a revote was necessary, as the Employer raised the issue that the Notice to Vote contained no indication that the vote could lead to a combined unit. The Employer operated two plants located in different centers. The certification applications were for employees at each of the plants individually as well as for employees at both plants combined. The Employer objected to the combined unit arguing that it was not an appropriate unit.Held, Based on the level of integration between the two plants, the Board held that combined unit was an appropriate unit. It further held that the Union could make the determination as to which unit it prefers at any time up to closing argument. Once the union chooses, the remaining applications are dismissed and the ballots are counted. The Board dismissed the Employer's argument that a new vote was needed, although it did suggest that it would be helpful if the Board were to provide additional information to employees in cases where the bargaining unit is in dispute. The Board concluded its decision by finding that the disputed employees did not exercise managerial functions and that the employee who attempted to vote be allowed to vote.

| View Decision |

20/09/02 - Linda Palasz and Alberta Teachers' Association and Northland School Division No. 61 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

20/09/02 - Heather Thompson and Alberta Teachers' Association and Northland School Division No. 61 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

17/09/02 - Hermine Cazely and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 8 and Mark Marin - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

13/09/02 - United Nurses of Alberta, Locals 23, 66, 89, 102, 120, 152, 160 and 164 and Chinook Regional Health Authority and United Nurses of Alberta Local 117 and Extendicare (Canada) Inc.- Letter Decision

| View Decision |

11/09/02 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 and Ledcor Industrial Limited - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

05/09/02 - General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 and Burnco Rock Products Ltd. - Formal Decision

Bargaining in bad faith - s. 60(1) - Board dismissed union's application alleging the employer bargained in bad faith by refusing to bargain after having been served with a notice to commence collective bargaining on the basis the notice was not properly served.

The Union alleges that the Employer refusal to bargain after having been served with a notice to commence collective bargaining was a breach of s.60(1) of the Code. The Employer argued that the Union failed to serve the notice in compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure and by the time it became aware of the notice, the time limits for opening collective bargaining had passed. The notice was faxed by the Union to the Employers office, but did not call the employer either before or after the fax was sent to let the Employer know it was being sent.Held, The Board held that while the union sent the fax to the correct number without any errors arising, the evidence did not prove that the Employer had knowledge that it had been sent. Rule 11 of the Board's Rules of Procedure states that the sending party must provide verbal notice of the transmission to a person at the receiving location. The Union acknowledged that no such notice had been provided. The Board declined to exercise its jurisdiction to relieve against the failure of any person to comply with the rules where the Board considers it necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The Board declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that in addition to failing to provide notice as required by the rules, the union did not follow up with the employer on the issue of bargaining for almost two months.

| View Decision |

05/09/02 - United Utility Workers' Association of Canada and SNC-Lavalin ATP Inc. and Certain Employees of SNC-Lavalin Inc. - Formal Decision

Complaint - Timeliness - s. 148(1)(a)(ii) - The Board held that a complaint filed after a vote in favour of revocation was timely as the Union had acted with reasonable dispatch.

Employers - Interference with Union - s. 148(1)(a)(ii) - Board found some portions of the Employer communication breached s.148(1)(a)(ii). The Board stated that exercise of some caution on the part of the Employer was necessary in the context of bargaining and a revocation application.

Free Speech - s. 148(2)(c) - Board found some portions of the Employer communication breached s. 148(1)(a)(ii). The Board stated that exercise of some caution on the part of the Employer was necessary in the context of bargaining and a revocation application.

The Union filed a complaint claiming a violation by the Employer of s. 148(1)(a)(ii) and objected to the revocation vote favouring revocation which had taken place the day before the Union's complaint was filed. The basis of the complaint was that the Employer had communicated with the employees leaving the impression they would be better without a trade union, thereby interfering with the Union's representation of the employees. The Employer relied on the employer speech provisions of the Code and further argued that the delay by the Union in bringing the complaint after the results of the revocation vote were known should disentitle it to relief.Held, The Board upheld the Union's complaint. The Board rejected the Employer's argument that any undue delay had occurred. The Board rejected the Union's argument that the Board adopt the position that Employers should adopt a position of strict neutrality. The Board also rejected the Union's argument that statements of fact could not amount to an employer's "expression of views" within the meaning of s. 148(2)(c). In accepting the Union's position that some portions of the Employer's communication violated s. 148(1)(a)(ii), the Board emphasized that communications that occurred in the context of both bargaining and a revocation application required that some caution be exercised by the Employer.

| View Decision |

04/09/02 - Kent Lubyk and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and B & K Refrigeration, Air Conditioning & Heating Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

03/09/02 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta and Continuing Care Employers' Bargaining Association and Alberta Mental Health Board and Capital Health Authority and Alberta Federation of Labour and Health Sciences Association of Alberta and United Nurses of Alberta and Attorney General of Alberta - Formal Decision

Dues - Payment - s. 114 - Board determined that s. 114 did not violate a union member's freedom of association guaranteed by s. 2(d) of the Charter nor did the original s. 114 decision violate their right not to receive double punishment as guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter.

In May 2000, auxiliary nursing members of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (the "Union") engaged in a two day illegal strike. As a result of this strike, the Board issued directives ordering the Union and its members to stop the illegal activity. The Board's directives were filed with the Court of Queen's Bench. The Union and its members continued its strike in the face of the Board's directive which had been filed with the Court and, ultimately, were found in contempt of Court and fined $200,000. The Board also granted the employer's application under s.114 (formerly s.112) for an order suspending the deduction and remittance of union dues for a period of six months. The Union challenged the Board's s.114 order on the basis that granting the dues suspension would amount to double punishment in contravention of s. 11(b) of the Charter. The Union also argued that s.114 was invalid as the section violated s .2(d) of the Charter.Held, The Board found that s.114 does not violate the freedom of association rights contained in s. 2(d) of the Charter. Section 2(d) does not include constitutional protection for certain activities of unions such as engaging in strikes contrary to the legislative framework. In its most basic form, the employer does not have a constitutional obligation to facilitate the collection of dues. In addition, s.114 only temporarily restricted one of the union's activities where the union has engaged in an illegal strike. The Board also stated that the concept of "maintaining the union" as argued by the union failed to distinguish between bare associational activities protected by s. 2(d) and other unprotected legislatively regulated group activities. Finally, s. 2(d) was not violated as the section was directed at the union and not the individual employee. If wrong on this issue of whether s.114 violated s. 2(d), the Board found s.114 would be saved by s.1.

20/08/02 - The Pepsi Bottling Group Employees' Association and The Pepsi Bottling Group - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

15/08/02 - Construction and General Workers' Union, Local No. 92 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Aecon Holdings Inc. and Aecon Infrastructure - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

13/08/02 - James Grover and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146 and Kellogg Brown & Root, A Division of Halliburton Group Canada Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

13/08/02 - Doncor Electric Ltd. and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

12/08/02 - Donna Hobbs and United Utility Workers' Association of Canada - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

30/07/02 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 41 and Surpass Cleaning Systems Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

26/07/02 - John Thompson and Burnco Rock Products Ltd. - Formal Decision

Prohibited practices by employer - s.149(a)(viii)

The Complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that he was terminated from his employment contrary to s.149(a)(viii) of the Code. The Complainant was a mixer/driver employed at the Respondent's Leduc operations. At a time when he had expressed interest in contacting and having a union, his employment was terminated. The issue was whether anti-union sentiment played any role in the Respondent's decision to terminate the Complainant.Held, The Board found the Respondent breached section 149(a)(viii) of the Code. The Board rejected the Respondent's submissions that its decision to terminate the Complainant had nothing to do with illegal motives under the Code. Despite not being a model employee, the termination was not explained by the reasons advanced by the employer but rather, was motivated at least in part because of the Complainant's involvement in attempting to bring a union to the workplace. The Complainant established a prima facie case that his termination was motivated at least in part out of anti-union motive, a case which the employer failed to undermine.

| View Decision |

26/07/02 - Todd Haugen and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 - Formal Decision

Prohibited practices by trade union - s. 151(f) and s. 151(i)(ii)

The Complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the Union alleging the Union had acted in contravention of the Code by illegally disciplining him after disclosing he had worked for a company that had a bargaining relationship with a competing union. The Complainant states that the discipline was in the form of a six month name hire suspension and an eight month list hire suspension, the latter which resulted in him losing the Somerville job. The Union, while admitting the name hire suspension, stated that he was not suspended from list hire, but rather had his out of work date adjusted to reflect the last date he had been employed, an adjustment that had nothing to do with the fact that he had worked for a company that has a bargaining relationship with a competing union. It was this adjustment that resulted in him not being sufficiently high on the list to obtain work on the project the Complainant complains of missing.Held, The Board concluded that there had been no list hire suspension. Rather, the Complainant's out of work date had simply been adjusted to reflect his last date of employment. It was this adjustment which led him to be insufficiently high on the hiring hall list to be dispatched to the Somerville job. The adjustment was a legitimate method of allowing those union members who had been out of work the longest to obtain employment before those that had worked more recently. It was a normal part of managing the hiring hall list and was applied to the Complainant in the same way it is applied to other union members. While the Board expressed concern over the name hire suspension, the finding did not affect the crux of the Complainant's case - the loss of the Somerville job.

| View Decision |

12/07/02 - Frank Corlis 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 Strathcona Mechanical (Alberta) Inc. - Formal Decision

Redirection of union dues - s. 29 - Summary dismissal - s. 16(4)(e) - The Board summarily dismissed the Applicant's application for redirection of his union dues on the basis that the application was res judicata and on the basis of Rule 24 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Applicant, Frank Corlis, filed an application (the second application) to have his union dues redirected to a charitable organization. The Applicant had previously made the same application in May 2001. In February 2002, the Board issued a decision dismissing this initial application. The Union applied have the second application summarily dismissed on the basis that the application was res judicata and on the basis of Rule 24 of the Board's Rules of Procedure. The applicant stated res judicata was not applicable and, while admitting the elements of Rule 24 were established, requested the Board to exercise its discretion to not apply the Rule for policy reasons.Held, The Board granted the Union's application for summary dismissal. The Board rejected the Applicant's argument that as he was not an employee for the purposes of the section (in respect of the May 2001 application), the Board did not have jurisdiction to make its initial ruling and therefore the matter could not be res judicata. The Board also rejected his argument that the Board's comments in the original decision about the sincerity of his religious beliefs were obiter dicta and therefore did not satisfy the test for res judicata. Ultimately, the Board found that the elements of res judicata were met. The issues and the parties were the same and the Board's decision was final. The Board also found that the elements of Rule 24 were met. Finally, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to allow the matter to proceed to hearing.

| View Decision |

10/07/02 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 30 and Certain Employees of Edmonton Northlands and Edmonton Northlands - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

08/07/02 - Finning (Canada) A Division of Finning International Inc. (Finning Ltd.) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

04/07/02 - Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada Local 1-207 and certain Employees of Winterburn Truss affecting Nelson Lumber Company Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

04/07/02 - Burnco Rock Products Ltd. v. General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

02/07/02 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401, Ed Schell, Philomena Wong, Gabriel Motshegoa, Dawn MacLean and Maria Walkden Brown and Economic Development Edmonton - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

03/07/02 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 875 and St. Joseph's Auxiliary Hospital - Formal Decision

Certification - Application - Timeliness - s. 37

AUPE applied for certification of a group of employees employed in auxiliary nursing who were, at the time of the application, represented by CUPE. Prior to the certification application being filed, CUPE and the employer had entered into a new collective agreement, which they argued closed the open period which AUPE relied upon to make its application timely. The issue was whether AUPE's certification application was timely or whether the new collective agreement had the effect of closing the open period, thereby making AUPE's certification application untimely.Held, Following the Board's previous decision in Capital Care Group, the Board held that the early renewal (and in turn early closing of the open period) of a collective agreement was a practice that was to be allowed as having a valid labour relations purpose. The Board further found that this interpretation was also consistent with the legislature's intent. The Board, considering evidence in the agreement that the parties intended to enter into a new collective agreement, that there was at least one substantive term of the agreement that came into effect immediately and that an employer would be unlikely to enter into an agreement that the bargaining agent could, within a few months, compel it to negotiate again, found that the employer and CUPE had entered into a new collective agreement which had the effect of closing the open period making AUPE's application untimely.

| View Decision |

28/06/02 - Ingrid Saunders v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1990, Connie Schwider and Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School Board - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

24/06/02 - Ivan Dacko and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1007 and EPCOR Utilities Inc./Edmonton Power - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

21/06/02 - RE: Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act - Wes Deley and Calgary Police Association and the City of Calgary - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

21/06/02 - Certain employees of the Shaw Conference Centre and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Economic Development Edmonton - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

15/06/02 - Economic Development Edmonton and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

The Employer applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a stay of the Board's June 4, 2002 decision directing the Employer to provide the Union with an updated list of employees including names, addresses and telephone numbers.

Held, The Court applied the tripartite American Cyanamid test. The Court concluded that the Employer had not established the second part of the test, irreparable harm, nor the third part of the test, that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay. The Court held the only harm that was relevant was harm suffered by the Employer and not employees. The Employer had not established irreparable harm based on damage to the relationship with its employees that would be caused by disclosure of the list of employees. The balance of convenience did not favour granting the stay. Granting the stay would cause the Union more harm than not granting it would cause the Employer. As such, the court dismissed the Employer's application.

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

12/06/02 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

05/06/02 - The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and St. Joseph's Hospital and Canadian Union of Public Employees - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

04/06/02 - United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, Ed Schell, Philomena Wong, Gabriel Motshegoa, Dawn MacLean and Maria Walken-Brown and Economic Development Edmonton - Formal Decision

The United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 (the "Union") sought production of an updated list of employees including their names, addresses and phone numbers. The Union had asked for the information as part of the relief it sought in a broad-ranging unfair labour practice complaint. The Board (Casey, Eslin, Basken - May 17, 2002) had previously ordered that a list of employees be provided to the Union. The Employer filed a judicial review application in relation to this original decision. The Employer opposed providing the updated list noting that it had filed a judicial review application with respect to the original decision, on the basis that the Board should not order disclosure of the information unless there had been a finding of an unfair labour practice complaint by the Employer, on the basis that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act did not allow for such disclosure without employee consent and on the basis that such an order constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under s.8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Employer requested a stay in the event the Board granted the Union's application for the list of employees.

Held, While accepting that in most cases s.12(2)(e) is used to issue preservative rather than remedial directions, the Board held that s.12(2)(e) was sufficiently broad to enable it to direct that the Employer provide the list of employees whether the directive was characterized as preservative or remedial. The Board held that it had the authority and ordered disclosure of the information whether or not it ultimately concluded that the refusal constituted an unfair labour practice complaint. The Board relied on its May 17, 2002 decision to conclude that the Union was entitled to the information, that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act did not prohibit the release of the information and that the directive did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the Charter. Finally, the Board rejected the Employer's application for a stay stating that the Employer would not suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the Union.

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

03/06/02 - Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47 and 770423 Alberta Ltd. operating as Sorrentino's Whyte - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

30/05/02 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Capital Health Authority and Canadian Union of Public Employees - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

30/05/02 - Dynamic Furniture Corp. and Construction and Specialized Workers' Local Union No. 1111 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

30/05/02 - Jean-Pierre Cognard and Construction and General Workers' Union Local No. 92, Pat McGill and ACJV (Fluor Daniel Canada Inc.) - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

29/05/02 - International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 805 and Laden Steel Fabricators Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

24/05/02 - Theresa Dunnigan and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1990, Connie Schwieder, Rick Klimchuk and the Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 1 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

22/05/02 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 41 and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Westview Regional Health Authority - Formal Decision

Certification - Application - Dismissal - s. 33 - The Board dismissed the certification application on the basis that the application did not have the requisite 40% support. The petition evidence was rejected as a result of misrepresentations made to the employee by the petition organizers which misled the employees as to the true effect of signing the petition.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees ("AUPE") represents general support services employees of the Westview Health Authority ("Westview") working at or out of the Stony Plain Regional Health Center. During an open period, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 41, filed a certification application relying on apparent petition support of more than 40% of employees in the unit. AUPE objected on the basis the petition evidence used in support of the application was fatally undermined by the circumstances of its collection.Held, The board upheld AUPE's objection and dismissed the certification application. The Board concluded that the petition must be authentic, understandable, fairly presented and freely signed in order to ensure that the petition evidence is a true voluntary indication of the employees' wishes. Drawing a line between misunderstanding and misrepresentation, the Board concluded that the petition was not fairly represented to at least some employees. The petition organizers led employees to believe that the petition was not what it appeared to be from its header. They portrayed it as a way of getting more information about CUPE as a potential bargaining agent and represented it in such a way that it looked like a preliminary, risk free step in ascertaining what representation options employees might have. Whether the misrepresentation was intentional or not was immaterial, both being equally fatal to the volition that must exist when an employee signs a petition. Finding the influence of the misrepresentation was likely to have been pervasive, the Board found the petition unreliable in its entirety and dismissed the application as lacking the required 40% support.

| View Decision |

17/05/02 - United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, Ed Schell, Philomena Wong, Gabriel Motshegoa, Dawn MacLean and Economic Development Edmonton - Formal Decision

The United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 (the "Union") sought production of a list (the "List") of employees in a bargaining unit of employees at the Shaw Conference Center, a division of Economic Development Edmonton (the "Employer"). Collective bargaining for a first collective agreement took place over fifteen months and to the date of the application had been unsuccessful. The Union argued it needed the List in order to communicate with employees about the status of collective bargaining. It framed its application for the List as an application for a Notice to Produce as well as under the Board's power under s.12(2)(e) of the Code to issue any interim orders, directives, or declarations it considered necessary pending the final determination of any matter before the Board (the Union had asked for the information as part of the relief it sought in a broad-ranging unfair labour practice complaint it had filed). The Employer refused the Union's request to provide the List without the written consent of each employee arguing that the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act prohibited it from releasing the information without the consent of each employee.

Held, The Board, relying on its power to issue interim directives under s.12(2)(e), directed the Employer provide the List to the Union. The direction was made pending a final determination of the unfair labour practice complaint. The Board rejected the Employer's argument that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act prevented the Employer from releasing the information without employee consent. The Board found that release of the information was permitted under a number of different subsections of s.40(1) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. The Board reasoned that as exclusive bargaining agent, the Union needed and was entitled to reasonable access to the employees in order to participate in a rational and informed discussion with employees about developments in the collective bargaining process. This need was even greater in this case where the Union had applied for a strike vote. The Board also rejected the Employer's argument that the direction to provide the List constituted an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s.8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

17/05/02 - Gary Loughery and Calgary Police Association and The City of Calgary - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

16/05/02 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1158 and Westview Regional Health Authority and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - Formal Decision

Certification - Bars To - s. 57 - Board's Discretion - s. 39 - The Board dismissed objections to a certification application made within 90 days of an initial application by a different local of the same union. The Board decided the application was not barred by s. 57 and the facts of the case did not support the Board exercising its discretion under s. 39 of the Code as being "any other relevant matter."

CUPE, Local 1158 applied for certification of a unit of employees of the Westview Regional Health Authority. The application was made several days after CUPE, Local 41 had applied for the same unit and its application had been dismissed. At the time of the application, AUPE represented the employees in the unit. AUPE raised two objections. First, AUPE objected saying the application was barred under s.57 of the Code as being the same or substantially the same application and was made within days from its refusal without obtaining consent of the Board. Second, AUPE argued under s.39 of the Code that the Board should consider the facts of this case as "any other relevant matter" and dismiss the application as an abuse of the Board's process.Held, The Board dismissed AUPE's objections and directed a representation vote. Dealing with the objection under s.57, the Board concluded the two Locals operated as separate "trade unions" as that term is used in the Code. As such, the applications were not made by the same applicant and were not caught by s.57 of the Code. This conclusion was supported by the constitutions and operations of the two Locals as well the fact that two separate organizing drives took place. Having found that the Local's were not the same union for the purposes of the Code, the Board rejected AUPE's argument that the second application was an abuse of the Board's process and should be considered an "other relevant matter".

| View Decision |

10/05/02 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Palliser Health Authority, Headwaters Health Authority, Regional Health Authority 5, Westview Regional Health Authority, Aspen Regional Health Authority #11, Lakeland Regional Health Authority, Northwestern Regional Health Authority, Mistahia Regional Health Authority, Chinook Regional Health Authority, East Central Regional Health Authority 7, Peace Regional Health Authority, Northern Lights Regional Health Authority and Keeweetinok Lakes Regional Health Authority #15 - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit - Appropriateness - Board finding that renaming of health care bargaining units be based on "municipal" descriptions as opposed to "facility" descriptions.

A merger between the Canadian Health Care Guild and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees ("AUPE") necessitated the issuance of new certificates for the approximately 125 bargaining relationships the guild had been a party to. The issue raised was how should such pre-regionalization certificates be updated to reflect the change in new regional structure of health care governance. The main issue was whether to describe the bargaining units in "facility" or "municipal" terms. The employers supported "facility" based units as to do otherwise would amount to an expansion of the scope of the AUPE's bargaining rights. AUPE favoured "municipal" based units citing the reasoning in UNA v. Crossroads RHA et al. [1998] Alta. L.R.B.R. 291. The employers argued that the rational behind this case should not be used to adopt the same approach in the current cases before the Board.Held, The Board found that it should generally follow the approach in Crossroads RHA ["municipal" based units] unless there are strong reasons not to. The Board rejected the employers' arguments that this approach should not be followed. These arguments included consistency between urban and rural facilities, consistency with the "Approved Hospital's List" and consistency across functional bargaining units. The Board allowed exceptions to this general approach based on the exceptions granted in Peace Regional Health Authority et. al. and Mistahia Regional Health Authority.

| View Decision |

10/05/02 - Stan Herian and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 70 and Kevin Jensen and Ewald Schwartz - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

30/04/02 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 and The Corporation of the City of Calgary - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

29/04/02 - Certain Employees of Bosco Homes A Society for Children and Adolescents and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Bosco Homes A Society for Children and Adolescents - Formal Decision

| View Decision |

22/04/02 - Charles Doering and United Steelworkers of America, Local 1976 and Dennis Dunster and Bulk Systems (Alberta) Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

22/04/02 - Dr. Anita Mitzner and United Nurses of Alberta, Local 115 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

16/04/02 - Fred Philips and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 37 and Dan Donahue, Doug Wellis and Mark Marin - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

15/04/02 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Westfair Foods Limited - Formal Decision Bargaining in Bad Faith - s.60 - Board dismissed Union's complaint that two memos sent to employees by management represented bargaining in bad faith.

Employers - Interference with Bargaining Rights - Memos from management to employees promising a no reprisal clause constituted interference with the union's ability to represent its members contrary to s.148(1)(a)(ii).Strikes - Vote - Strike vote was invalid as it improperly excluded a significant portion of "the dispute", namely the employees covered by the collective agreement in Calgary.

The UFCW (the "Union") was the certified bargaining agent for Superstore (the "Employer") employees in the greater Edmonton area and was voluntarily recognized by Superstore for employees in Calgary and several other cities in Alberta. The UFCW and Superstore were parties to a collective agreement covering Edmonton, Calgary, Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove and St. Albert. In the spring of 2000, the UFCW served a notice to commence collective bargaining and bargaining commenced. In January 2002, the UFCW applied for mediation under the Code for employees in the greater Edmonton area. Mediation was unsuccessful. The mediator confirmed that the mediation applied to stores in the "Greater Edmonton Area". The Union then applied for a strike vote for employees of the "Greater Edmonton Area". The Board approved the vote for these employees. During the course of mediation and the application for the strike vote, Superstore sent two memos to its employees which stated that if a strike occurred, a return to work agreement would be negotiated and would include an agreement that the union not impose fines or penalties on employees who chose to work during the strike. The Union alleged that these memos constituted bargaining in bad faith and interfered with the Union's representation rights. The Employer alleged that the strike vote was invalid as it improperly excluded a significant portion of "the dispute", namely the employees covered by the collective agreement in Calgary.Held, The Board dismissed the Union's complaint of bad faith bargaining. The Board found that the failure to discuss at the bargaining table the no reprisal issue that was mentioned in one of the memos was not bad faith bargaining. The Board stated that its role was to not intervene in free collective bargaining except where necessary to preserve the integrity of the Code and that in this case it was not necessary to do so as the issue had not even materialized, let alone been placed on the bargaining table and that the Union had sufficient opportunity to respond to the Employer's position.The Board accepted the Union's complaint that the memos improperly interfered with the representation of employees by the Union. Union representation includes organizing as well as all aspects of negotiating and administering the collective agreement. The Employer's communication directly with employees promising a no reprisal clause interfered with the Union's constitution and its right to discipline members. Given the timing and the content of the communication, the intent was to sow dissension in the Union membership and convince members to cross any picket line set up. Its purpose was to undermine the Union and the Union's ability to enforce its constitution in the eyes of its employees.The Board accepted the Employer's complaint that the strike vote was invalid having improperly excluded a significant portion of "the dispute", namely the employees covered by the collective agreement in Calgary. The "dispute" covered all employees covered by the collective agreement including the certified bargaining relationship and voluntarily recognized relationships. Where two parties negotiate a larger unit than that originally certified by the Board, the dispute covers all employees covered by the collective agreement. This was one collective agreement covering one dispute. Finally, the Board rejected the Union's argument that the Employer agreed to split the collective agreement into two agreements by its acquiescence to the Union's application for mediation restricting mediation to the Greater Edmonton Area only or was estopped from arguing one agreement by this conduct.

| View Decision |

09/04/02 - General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 and Burnco Rock Products Ltd. - Formal Decision Reconsideration - s. 12(4) - Reconsideration application to consolidate several certificates as well as a voluntary recognition held by the same union with the same employer.

Bargaining Unit - Appropriateness - s. 11(3) - Reconsideration application in which Board held that consolidation of separate certificates and a voluntary recognition agreement resulted in an appropriate bargaining unit.

The union made a reconsideration application to consolidate the bargaining rights for mixer drivers at three locations operating under certificates (Calgary, Okotoks and Cochrane) and one location operating under voluntary recognition (Airdrie). Due to the rapid growth in the Calgary market, more and more the employer required the flexibility that resulted in the more integrated approach to the operation of the Calgary facilities and the facilities located in the three outlying areas. The employer argued that the application should have been under s.41 of the Code and not s.12 and that its operations had not changed significantly since the last time a similar application was made such that consolidation should not be allowed. The union argued that s.12 was the appropriate section for the application and that the employer's operations had changed significantly since the last application.Held, The Board granted the union's application. Responding to the employer's first objection, the Board found that s.12 was the appropriate section under which to bring an application to reconsider and consolidate certificates. Responding to the employer's second objection, the Board stated that it may reconsider the appropriateness of bargaining units where there has been a "significant change in the workplace". The Board's response to an application to reconsider an existing bargaining unit structure will vary with a number of factors including: nature of the existing bargaining structure; whether bargaining rights would be lost as a result of the variation; whether the application contemplates a consolidation, clarification or fragmentation of the bargaining structure; and employee wishes. Applying the factors to this case, the Board held that a significant change had occurred in the workplace and that the proposed consolidated structure was an appropriate unit. Although the Board heard evidence about actual industrial instability, it stated that in a case such as this that involves only one bargaining agent, evidence of industrial stability was not as significant a factor as it would be in cases involving two or more unions. The Board also found that the application was not being brought to merely gain better terms and conditions of employment that could not be obtained at the bargaining table. The Board granted the relief subject to a vote of employees confirming support for the application.

| View Decision |

04/04/02 - Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union No. 8 and Certain employees of Gatt Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd. and GATT Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

25/03/02 - Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47 and 770423 AB Ltd. and Sorrentino's Whyte - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

20/03/02 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 and ENMAX Corporation, Encompass, Enmax Power and Enmax Energy - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

19/03/02 - Bosco Homes A Society for Children and Adolescents and The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - Letter Decision.

| View Decision |

18/03/02 - International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 and Interior Lift Truck Services Inc. and Finning Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

12/03/02 - Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union Local 47 and Boomtown Casino Ltd. - Formal Decision

Bargaining Unit - Appropriateness - Fragmentation - s. 34(1)(c) - Bargaining unit applied for rejected as not being an appropriate bargaining unit.

The union applied for several units of employees including "all employees employed as servers and bartenders." The employer in question operates a small casino (12,000 square feet and approximately 80 employees). It offers gaming tables, slot machines, bar service and a small café. The café, janitorial and security services are contracted out. The employer divides it operations into departments with employees in the department reporting to a department manager who in turn reports to the General Manager. The unit applied for consisted of approximately 13 employees. The union argues that these departments create a natural and readily identifiable boundary for a bargaining unit. The employer argued that the proposed unit was too small to be viable and was merely a department in an otherwise integrated operation of this small, single site employer.Held, The Board found that the unit applied for was not an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. While the employees did share a community of interest, they shared a stronger community of interest will all employees of the casino. The Board also found that the proposed unit was not viable for collective bargaining given its size and role relative to other employees and that it would lead potentially to undue fragmentation in the event other departments within the employer became certified on a department-by-department basis. While the wishes of these employees were clearly relevant, they must be balanced against other competing interests in the application. Finally, the Board commented on the Board Officer and the Board Officer's Report in certification applications.

| View Decision |

12/03/02 - Vernon Loutan and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Mark Clancy and The Capital Health Authority and Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Queen's Bench Decision

Judicial Review - s. 19 - Court confirming on judicial review the Board's reconsideration decision which found no breach of the duty of fair representation.

Reconsideration - s. 11(4) - Standard of review of reconsideration decision that of patent unreasonableness.Fair representation duty - s. 153 - Court confirming Board's reconsideration decision that found the original Board decision imposed too strict a standard on the union.

The initial Board decision found the union had breached its duty of fair representation regarding its handling of a grievance. The grievance arose from the complainant's request to be transferred to a vacant position. The employer made a verbal offer, which was accepted. The employer then informed the complainant that it could no longer offer him the job because the union because the union insisted that another person whose name was on the recall list get the job. The complainant asked the union to bring a grievance. While the complainant was given a chance to present his case, the union refused to pursue the grievance because of a policy commitment it had given to the employer to prefer the recall of laid off members in filling vacant positions. The original panel found the union in breach of s.153 of the Code. The Union sought reconsideration. The reconsideration panel allowed the reconsideration application and dismissed the fair representation complaint. The complainant sought judicial review of the reconsideration panel's decision.Held, The court dismissed the complainant's application for judicial review. The court confirmed that the standard of review of a reconsideration decision involving s.153 of the Code was patent unreasonableness. The Court found that the reconsideration panel properly applied the approach set out in Interpretation Bulletin #18. The union was entitled to take into account the competing interests of employees wanting to transfer to vacant positions and recall rights of employees and too choose one set of interests as taking precedence over the other. In doing so, the union explained its position, gave the complainant an opportunity to respond and provided a rational basis for its decision. The union was under no duty to investigate or pursue the matter further in the circumstances.

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

11/03/02 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 348 and Dominion Information Services Inc. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

07/03/02 - The Pepsi Bottling Group Employees' Association and The Pepsi Bottling Group - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

06/03/02 - JR Coatings Systems 2000 Inc. affecting certain employees of JR Coatings Systems 2000 Inc. and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local No. 177 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

06/03/02 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Sani-Tech Mechanical Ltd. and Certain Employees of Sani-Tech Mechanical Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

06/03/02 - Neil Leadbeater and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401, Randy Ruaben, Kevin Tamblyn, Jim Hamilton, Irshad Chourdry, Doug Friesen and Douglas O'Halloran - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

06/03/02 - Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47 and Frontier Catering Ltd. and North Country Catering Ltd. and Denman Industrial Trailers Ltd. and Oilsands Industrial Lodge and Canadian Association of Camp Caterers - Formal Decision

Sale of business - Successor rights - s. 46 - Board dismissing successorship application - No transfer of a functional economic vehicle.

Common Employer - s. 47 - Board dismissing common employer application - No common control and direction. Owner contractor relationship between Frontier and Denham. North Country simply a subsequent contractor to Frontier.

Denman Industrial Trailers Ltd. ("Denman") and Frontier Catering Ltd. ("Frontier") worked together in the development and operation of the Oilsands Industrial Lodge (the "Lodge"). Denman owned the Lodge while Frontier provided catering, housekeeping and other related services. The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47 (the "Union") certified the employees of Frontier. Shortly after certification, the business relationship between Denman and Frontier was terminated and Denman entered into a new contractual arrangement with North Country Catering Ltd. ("North Country") for the supply of catering and housekeeping services. The Union filed a complaint and application with the Board alleging, among other things, that there was a successorship from Frontier to one or more of Denman and North Country and that Frontier was a common employer with one or more of Denman and North Country.Held, The Board granted the application of Denman and North Country for summary dismissal of the Union's application for common employer and successorship declarations. Dealing with the common employer applications, the Board found an absence of the typical factors which may lead a board to find a common employer relationship including no common ownership between the companies; no common financial control; no common management; no common premises; no centralized control of labour relations and no interchange of employees. Dealing with the successorship application, the Board found that there had not been a transfer of a functional economical vehicle from Frontier to either Denman or North Country.

| View Decision |

05/03/02 - Todd A. Haugen and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

04/03/02 - Errol Norman and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Carl Wilson and Delta Catalytic Industrial Services Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

04/03/02 - United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 6034 and Hunting Oilfield Services (Canada) Limited - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

01/03/02 - Randy Filgas and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401, Irshad Choudry, Doug Friesen, Jim Hamilton and Randy Ruaben - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

01/03/02 - Mark William Brydges and International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union No. 720, James Fougere and Waiward Steel Fabricators Ltd. - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

01/03/02 - F. Wayne Sobkowicz and Alberta & NWT Regional Council of Carpenters and Allied Workers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and Muskeg River Contractors - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

26/02/02 - Derek Duke and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Robert Blakely and Micah Field and Paul Walzack - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

13/02/02 - Frank Corlis and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 -Letter Decision

| View Decision |

05/02/02 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

24/01/02 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146 - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

24/01/02 - United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 6034 and ConAgra Limited - Letter Decision

| View Decision |

21/01/02 - Larry Kakuk v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 1112, Rob DaSilva and Al Willey -Letter Decision

| View Decision |

11/01/02 - The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and KAPS Construction Ltd. and Dublanko Construction Ltd. - Formal Decision

Sale of business - Successor rights - s. 46 – Board granting successorship application – Successor hiring “key man” of predecessor to act as manager. Common employer - s. 47 – Board dismissing common employer application – One company now defunct.

Shortly after the Union was certified as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of DuBlanko Construction Ltd., the owner and operator of the company, Al DuBlanko, decided to cease operations. Almost immediately, he moved to KAPS Construction Ltd. (“KAPS”) to become the manager. KAPS also hired the two other remaining employees of DuBlanko Construction and DuBlanko used the same vehicle he had used when operating his company. KAPS used the same fax number and became active in the same market as DuBlanko Construction. The Union alleged that KAPS was the successor employer to DuBlanko Construction or that the two companies were common employers. Held, The Board found that KAPS was the successor to DuBlanko Construction. The “business” of DuBlanko Construction was the knowledge, skill, contacts, expertise and reputation of Dublanko. He was the “key man” of DuBlanko Construction. When he closed down his company and immediately moved to KAPS to perform the same type of work, the “business” of DuBlanko Construction or at least part of it was transferred to KAPS. Even though KAPS was already operating when DuBlanko joined the company, KAPS was still in its infancy and it successfully obtained larger contracts after DuBlanko was the manager. The Board rejected the argument that there was no transfer because DuBlanko Construction operated in the unionized construction business and KAPS operated in the non-unionized sector. To give effect to that argument would undermine the successorship provisions under the Code. The Board dismissed the common employer application on the basis that DuBlanko Construction was effectively defunct.

| View Decision |

04/01/02 - Crown in Right of Alberta v. Alberta Labour Relations Board, The Municipal District of Birch Hills No. 19, The Municipal District of Saddle Hills No. 20, The Municipal District of Clear Hills No. 21, the Municipal District of MacKenzie No. 23 and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. - Court of Appeal - Reasons for Decision

Judicial review - s. 1(m) (P.S.E.R.A.) - Improvement district advisory councils deemed to be councils of new municipal districts - Interpretation of word “deemed” - Board interpreting statute other than PSERA or Code – Court of Queen’s Bench finding Board subject to “correctness” standard and quashing Board decisions - Court of Appeal finding Board interpretation subject to “patently unreasonable” standard of review and Board not breaching standard – Board decisions reinstated.

Judicial review - Natural justice - s. 16(6) - Crown notified of successorship application under P.S.E.R.A. and declined to attend hearing - At hearing, application expanded to consider Code provisions -No notice to Crown of Code application – Court of Queen’s Bench finding Crown denied opportunity to call evidence and quashing Board decisions – Court of Appeal finding no breach of natural justice and reinstating Board decisions.

In decisions known as “Saddle Hills #1” (see [1996] Alta. L.R.B.R. 1) and “Saddle Hills #2” (see [1996] Alta. L.R.B.R. 260), the Board found the Municipalities were successor employers to the Crown in right of Alberta (the “Crown”) under s. 90 of PSERA and were bound by the collective agreements negotiated by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (“AUPE”). It also found the Municipalities subsequently became subject to the Code, but remained bound by the AUPE collective agreements. The Municipalities and the Crown applied for judicial review of both Board decisions. They argued the Board erred in finding the Municipalities were PSERA employers. The Crown, which had expressly declined to participate in the PSERA successorship application against the Municipalities, argued it was denied natural justice when it did not receive notice of issues that arose during the hearing of Saddle Hills #1 and when the panel in Saddle Hills #2 found it unnecessary to hear evidence the Crown sought to introduce. The chambers judge found the Board decisions should be reviewed using a standard of “correctness”. She said both Board panels erred in determining that the Municipalities were “employers” under PSERA. She also found there had been breaches of natural justice committed by both panels. The Board decisions were set aside and remitted to the Board. The Board and the AUPE appealed the decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Held: The Court allowed the appeals and reinstated the Board decisions. The appropriate standard of review was the “patently unreasonable” standard and the Board did not breach that standard in making its decisions. Nor was there a breach of natural justice. Once a successorship was established, the Crown had no further interest in the agreement and no right to participate further in the hearing.