.
.
Decisions Issued in 2003
23/12/2003 - The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and University of Calgary - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
19/12/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and J & N Technical Services Ltd., Flint Energy Services Ltd. and Flint Integrated Services Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
18/12/2003 - United Nurses of Alberta and Shepherd's Care Foundation - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
09/12/2003 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 v. The City of Calgary- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
09/12/2003 - Arlen Peterka v. Boilermakers Lodge 146 and Plumbers Local 488 and 495 operating as the Quality Control Council of Canada, Dean Milton and Phillip Lane - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
05/12/2003 - The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 875 and St. Joseph's Auxiliary Hospital - Court of Queen's Bench Decision
Certification - Bars To - s.37(2)(d) - Court found ratification will only result in closing of the open periods identified in s.37 if the employees are informed of the right to an open period and the manner in which they are waiving it.
The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) sought judicial review of a reconsideration decision that chose not to reconsider an original decision of the Board. The Board's original decision found the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the Employer had entered into a new collective agreement that was a bar to AUPE's certification application. The new collective agreement closed what would have been the open period arising in the last two months of the original collective agreement. The issue addressed by the Court was whether the employees knew they were waiving their right to the open period when they ratified the collective agreement.
Held, The Court found the Board's decision to not reconsider the original decision to be patently unreasonable. It found the Reconsideration Panel made a patently unreasonable decision in accepting the reasoning used in Capital Care, a previous decision of the Board addressing the issue of closing of open periods. In particular, the Court found that for a waiver of an open period to be effective, the employees must be informed of the right to an open period and the manner in which they are waiving it. The Court also found the Reconsideration Panel erred in accepting that the Original Panel made no substantial error of fact or law in finding that the employees unambiguously accepted a new collective agreement.
| View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
05/12/2003 - Rene Labonne v. Construction and General Workers' Union, Local No. 92 and TIC Canada (2002) ULC- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
05/12/2003 - Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and 544509 Alberta Ltd.- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
28/11/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and Value Scaffold Inc. and North American Scaffold Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
24/11/2003 - Donald MacKenzie and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
20/11/2003 - Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Brad Geoffroy and Force Electric Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
20/11/2003 - United Nurses of Alberta, Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta and Health Employers (Facility) - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
19/11/2003 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, Continuing Care Employers' Bargaining Association, Alberta Mental Health Board and Capital Health Authority - Formal Decision
Dues - Payment - s.114- s.12(4) - The Board rejected AUPE's application to reconsider a dues suspension order issued under s.114. The passage of time and the accompanying changes in the composition of the bargaining unit are not sufficient grounds to reconsider such an order.
The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) seeks reconsideration of the Board's prior decisions ordering a dues suspension pursuant to s.114 of the Code. AUPE argues fundamental changes have occurred since those decisions were issued, particularly the restructuring that occurred since April 1, 2003 under The Labour Relations Regional Health Authorities Restructuring Amendment Act (Bill 27). The responding employers (the Employers) argue the reconsideration application is simply a variation of arguments previously advanced by AUPE and rejected by the Board, that AUPE's arguments overstates the changes under Bill 27 and that some of the delay which has resulted in these changes taking place before the dues suspension order was implemented was caused by AUPE.
Held, The Board summarily dismissed AUPE's application for reconsideration. The Board rejected the argument that changes in the bargaining unit brought about by the passage of time should cause the Board to reconsider the dues suspension order. The Board stated this argument would have the potential of significantly undermining the ability to issue such orders. The Board also found AUPE's argument based on employee turnover was one the Board had previously rejected in AUPE #3 and, as such, cannot now properly form the basis of a reconsideration application. Even if this argument were considered, the Board would have rejected it on the same basis it did in AUPE #3.
| View CA Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision |
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
18/11/2003 - Mohammed Yousuf Hussain affecting the Civic Service Union 52 and The City of Edmonton - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
17/11/2003 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 1118, certain employees of Edmonton Stockyards Inc. and Edmonton Stockyards Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
17/11/2003 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Trophy Foods Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
07/11/2003 - The Minister of Human Resources and Employment and United Nurses of Alberta and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta - Formal Decision
Arbitration - Compulsory - s.98(b) - The Board found 20 different disputes existed in the current round of bargaining UNA. The Board further found the Minister does not have the authority to join the disputes into one proceeding before a single C.A.B.
The Minister of Human Resources & Employment sought determinations from the Board on three questions relating to the Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta's (PHAA) request for a compulsory arbitration board. The questions related to an issue between the United Nurses of Alberta (UNA) and the nine health regions and their authorized bargaining agent, PHAA. The three questions were:
1. Is there one, or several disputes?
2. If there is more than one dispute, how many disputes are there?
3. If there is more than one dispute, could the disputes be joined into one proceeding before a single Compulsory Arbitration Board (C.A.B.)?
Held, The Board found there were 20 disputes in the current round of bargaining involving UNA. It further found the disputes could not be joined into one proceeding before a single C.A.B. without the consent of the parties. With the passage of Bill 27, the Board found there was one dispute in direct nursing for each of the nine health regions and eleven additional disputes involving UNA bargaining units and voluntary employers. The Board also found the use of the phrase "the dispute" in s98 of the Code required the Minister to appoint one C.A.B. for each of the 20 disputes subject to the parties agreement to proceed before a single C.A.B.
| View Decision |
07/11/2003 - Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 707 and Chinook Regional Health Authority, Palliser Health Region, Calgary Health Region, David Thompson Regional Health Authority, East Central Health, Capital Health, Aspen Regional Health Authority, Peace Country Health, Northern Lights Health Region, the Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, United Nurses of Alberta (various locals), Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Canadian Union of Public Employees (various locals), Alberta Mental Health Board and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955 - Letter Decision
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
|
View Summary of
Dispositions | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
07/11/2003 - Board-Initiated Applications under the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers, Local No. 707, United Nurses of Alberta and its Local Unions, Health Sciences Association and Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local Unions and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, Capital Health, Calgary Health Region, Chinook Health Region, Palliser Health authority, David Thompson Health Region, East Central Health Region, Aspen Regional Health Authority, Peace Country Health, Northern Lights Health Region and Alberta Federation of Labour and Attorney General of Alberta - Formal Decision
Natural Justice - s. 12(4) - Board exercised its discretion against holding a hearing into allegations of breaches of natural justice leaving the parties to pursue any judicial remedies available to them.
The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers, Local No. 707 and the United Nurses of Alberta and its Local Unions (the Applicants) sought reconsideration of the Board's decisions under the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorties Restructuring) Amend Act and related regulations (Bill 27). The primary ground raised by the Applicants alleged the existence of a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Board's lacked independence from the Government of Alberta in respect of all of the Board's proceedings under Bill 27.
Held, The Board held the application could not be heard by the Board in a fashion that would be seen as fair by all parties and would be consistent with the Board's varied role under the Code. The Board exercised its discretion against holding a hearing into the reconsideration application leaving the Applicants to pursue any judicial remedies available to them.
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision | View Summary of Dispositions |
29/10/2003 - Calgary Fire Fighters Association, Local 255 , I.A.F.F. and The City of Calgary - Formal Decision
Bargaining in Bad Faith - s. 60(1)(b) - Board found raising bargaining positions very late in the process amounted to bad faith bargaining.
Arbitration - Items in Dispute - s. 16(3) - Board found the Calgary Firefighters Pension Plan was an item in dispute before the Compulsory Arbitration Board.
The matters addressed in this case centre around the Calgary Firefighters Supplementary Pension Plan (the "FSPP"). The Board's decision addresses a bad faith bargaining complaint filed by the International Association of Firefighters, Local 255 (the "Association") against the City of Calgary (the "City") alleging the City's provision of bargaining demands with respect to the FSPP only days before hearings before a Compulsory Arbitration Board ("C.A.B.") amounts to bad faith bargaining. The decision also addresses an application brought by the City under s.16(3) concerning a disagreement between the parties as to whether the FSPP is an "item in dispute" before the C.A.B.
Held, The Board upheld part of the Association's complaint alleging the City failed to make every reasonable effort to enter into a collective agreement in breach of s.60(1)(b). In particular, certain demands made shortly before compulsory arbitration proceedings commenced had the effect of substantially changing the nature and scope of the dispute surrounding the FSPP. These demands were characterized by the Board as late or last minute demands. In addition, no reasonable justification was given for the timing of these demands although the Board found the Association was also party at fault for the City's failure to initiate discussions with respect to certain issues. The Board also found that some issues were raised in a timely fashion.
After discussing the procedural history that led to the matter being before the Board and the facts of the case, the Board concluded the FSPP was an item in dispute. It was raised in a timely fashion and was raised in a manner such that the Association would have known the City wanted to discuss the FSPP.
| View Decision |
29/10/2003 - United Nurses of Alberta and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta - Formal Decision
Bargaining in Bad Faith - s. 60 - The appointment of a C.A.B. does not negate the duty under s. 60 of the Code to bargain in good faith.
The issue before the Board is whether there is an ongoing duty to bargain in good faith after the appointment of a Compulsory Arbitration Board ("C.A.B.").
Held, The duty to bargain in good faith as set out in s.60 of the Code continues after the appointment of a C.A.B. While the parties may not add issues to the dispute to be heard by the C.A.B., there is nothing in the legislation curtailing the parties from eliminating items in dispute. The duty to bargain commences when a notice to commence bargaining is served and extends from the date of service until a new agreement is achieved through whatever process. A C.A.B. replaces the strike/lockout option - it does replace the duty to bargain in good faith.
| View Decision |
29/10/2003 - Sean Bennett and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local No. 401 and Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court Decision
Union Merger - s. 49(1) - Stays - Court of Queen's Bench dismissed application to stay a Board hearing to address whether a merger had occurred between the Staff Association and the UFCW, Local 401.
A member of the Palace Casino Staff Association (the "Applicant") applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a stay of a Board hearing to allow the Applicant to apply to the Court for an order prohibiting the Board from determining whether a merger occurred between the Staff Association the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401.
Held, The Board dismissed the stay application. While the Court accepted there was a serious issue to be tried and that irreparable harm would occur without the stay, it found the balance of convenience lay in not granting the stay.
| View QB Decision | ALRB Decision was an Oral Decision |
27/10/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and Monad Contractors Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
23/10/2003 -John Thompson and Burnco Rock Products Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
22/10/2003 -John Thompson and Burnco Rock Products Ltd. and Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Queen's Bench Decision
Judicial Review - s. 12(4) - Damages - s. 17(1)(b)(vi) - Costs - s. 12(2)(i) - The Court dismissed the application for judicial review seeking to increase the Board's damages award. The Court specifically rejected the argument the Board should have provided a "Wallace bump" and awarded costs to the Applicant.
The Applicant sought judicial review of the Board's decision awarding him damages against his former employer. He argued the damage award was in error and should have been significantly higher. As part of his argument, he argued the Board should have increased his damages by adding a "Wallace bump" to his award. He further argued the Board erred in failing to award costs against his former employer.
Held, The Court concluded the proper standard of review to be applied to the Board's decision was the patently unreasonable standard. Based on this standard, the Court held the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application. In doing so, the Court specifically rejected the Applicant's argument for a "Wallace bump" and the argument the Board should have awarded costs against the employer.
| View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View CA Decision |
21/10/2003 -United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401, Theresa Kapowich, Janet Gibbens, Jennifer Champion and Gateway Casino Canada Inc. - and -Palace Casino Staff Association and Gateway Casino Canada Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
07/10/2003 -Public Service Alliance of Canada - PSAC and Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
03/10/2003 -Region 1 and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and United Nurses of Alberta, Locals 23, 66, 82, 89, 102, 120, 140, 152, 160, 164 and Alberta Mental Health Board et al. - Letter Decision
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision | View Summary of Dispositions |
02/10/2003 -Albert Fournier and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Ken Eerkes and Ledcor Industrial Limited- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
02/10/2003 -Rene LaBonne and Construction and General Workers' Union, Local No. 92, Ken Reid and MM Ltd. Partnership - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
30/09/2003 - David Thompson Regional Health Authority, Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Canadian Union of Public Employees Locals 715, 838, 934, 2114, and 2981 and Alberta Mental Health Board and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
23/09/2003 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Locals 41, 182, 189, 408, 715, 838, 890, 934, 936, 1157, 1158, 1212, 1240, 1399, 1413, 1419, 1461, 1808, 2112, 2114, 2147, 2832, 2839, 2942, 2981, 3062, 3066, 3196, 3266, 3781, 4265, 4306 and 4484 and Regional Health Authorities 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 et al.- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
19/09/2003 - J & N Technical Services Ltd. and Flint Energy Services Ltd. and Flint Integrated Services Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 - Formal Decision
Board - Practice - The Board rejected the Applicants' claim that the Respondent's successorship and common applications were insufficiently particularized. It also rejected the Applicants' more general argument that the Board's approach in accepting such applications was faulty.
The Applicants objected under Rule 22(2) of the Board's Rules of Procedure to the decision of the Board's Executive Director to accept successor employer and common employer applications from the Respondent. The Applicants argued the applications were insufficiently particularized, that they did not comply with the requirements of Information Bulletins #2, #19, and #21 and, as such, that they should not have been accepted. They argued accepting such applications placed a reverse onus on the Respondents and is part of a pattern of building trade unions filing such deficient applications which then become the basis for document production orders which allow the unions to discover their case. The Respondent denied the allegation and argued the Respondents' application was itself an abuse of process adding another layer of litigation to an already time consuming and costly process.
| View Decision |
18/09/2003 - Calgary Board of Education Staff Association and Calgary School District No. 19 - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
15/09/2003 - Public Service Alliance of Canada - PSAC and Canadian Corp of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
04/09/2003 - Public Service Alliance of Canada and Peter Langford and Canadian Corp of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
28/08/2003 - United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 5885 and Wenroc Management Services Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
22/08/2003 - Calgary Fire Fighters Association, Local 255 I.A.F.F. and The City of Calgary - Formal Decision
Arbitration - Deferral - s. 16(4)(d) - The Board deferred consideration of the Union's complaint pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration proceedings. The interpretation of the collective agreement was at the heart of the dispute and was an issue best answered through the arbitration process.
The International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 255 (the "Union") filed a complaint, pursuant to section 16(1), alleging the City of Calgary (the "City"), violated the statutory freeze set out in section 147(3). The Union alleged that following the commencement of collective bargaining, the City refused to pay a permanent disability pension to a Union member, in accordance with the terms of a supplementary pension plan. The City took the position the individual was not entitled to the benefit until his employment with the City had terminated. The City had paid the same benefit to a different individual some months previously. Therefore, the refusal to pay was an alteration of a term or condition of employment contrary to section 147(3). The City denied the breach. It stated the payment of the benefit to a person who remained an employee was in contravention of the supplementary pension plan and that it was in the process of correcting the mistake earlier made in allowing an employee to be paid such a benefit. The City also argued the Board should defer its consideration pending the conclusion of the collective agreement arbitration addressing this issue.
Held, The Board decided to defer its consideration of the Union's complaint pending the conclusion of the collective agreement arbitration proceedings. At the heart of the dispute, lies the proper interpretation of the terms of the collective agreement, in particular, the provisions of the supplementary pension plan. The involvement of the Board interpreting provisions of the Code would only arise upon there first being an interpretation of the collective agreement favourable to the position advanced by the Union. The answer to this question is best provided by the expertise of a labour arbitrator.
| View Decision |
15/08/2003 - Shawn Penney and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and TIC Canada (2000) ULC - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
15/08/2003 - Sobeys Capital Incorporated and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 - Formal Decision
Picketing - The Board rejected the argument the leafleting in issue amounted unlawful (defamatory) picketing in contravention of s. 84.
Bargaining in Bad Faith - s. 60 - The Board rejected the argument the leafleting in question amounted to bad faith bargaining.
Unlawful Activity - s.154 - The Board rejected the argument the leafleting in question amounted to dispute related misconduct.
Free Speech - s. 148(2)(c) - The Board found comments made by an assistant store manager that a strike may cause the store to close, in the context in which they were made, did not amount to a breach of s. 148(1)(a) and fell within the free speech defence provided by s. 148(2)(c).
Sobeys Capital Incorporated (the "Employer") filed a complaint with the Board alleging the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local No. 401 (the "Union") and others had engaged in picketing contrary to section 84 of the Code. The Employer further alleged the information conveyed contained falsehoods and fabrications intended to denigrate the Employer in the eyes of its customers and the public and since it occurred during collective bargaining, constituted bad faith bargaining contrary to section 60 of the Code. The Employer also argued the leafleting breached section 154(1) of the Code. The Union denied the leafleting constituted picketing and denied the information contained any false statements. The Union also filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the Employer violated section 148(1)(a) when an assistant store manager told an employee to vote "No" in an impending strike vote as the Employer would close the store is there was a strike vote. The Employer denied the assistant store manager made the comment and, in any event, relied on the defence provided by section 148(2)(c) that an employer can express its views so long as there is no coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.
Held, The Board dismissed the Union's complaint. The comment by the store manager, in the context in which it occurred, did not amount to coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence. The comment was, under all the circumstances, a comment falling within the right of free speech protected by section 148(2)(c). The Board also rejected the Employer's argument that the Union had engaged in picketing contrary to section 84. The Board rejected the Employer's argument that the leafleting in this case fell outside the peaceful, permissible category established by the case law. The Board found the leafleting was not defamatory and therefore did not constitute picketing in contravention of section 84. The Board also dismissed the Employer's argument that the leafleting activities constituted bad faith bargaining. It found no evidence the Employer's reputation was denigrated by the statements in the leaflet nor any evidence the statements were designed to accomplish that result. Finally, the Board dismissed the Employer's argument the leafleting constituted dispute related misconduct in breach of section 154.
| View Decision |
13/08/2003 - Canadian Corp of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) and Public Service Alliance of Canada and Peter Langford - Formal Decision
Reconsideration - s. 12(4) - The Board voided a previous decision of the Board on the basis a reasonable apprehension of bias existed when a panel that had heard evidence about a settlement agreement continued to hear an unfair labour practice complaint involving the same parties.
Board - Practice - The Board voided a previous decision of the Board on the basis a reasonable apprehension of bias existed when a panel that had heard evidence about a settlement agreement continued to hear an unfair labour practice complaint involving the same parties.
The Canadian Corp of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) (the "Employer") sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision finding it had violated the Code by transferring an individual to an inferior position because of the individual's activities in support of a union organizing drive. The Employer alleged the Board committed errors of fact and law respecting the onus or proof on the issue of breach of contract and respecting reasonable apprehension of bias. In particular, the Employer argued that same panel could not adjudicate on the issue of the validity of a settlement agreement between the parties and then proceed to hear an unfair labour practice complaint affecting the same parties.
Held, The reconsideration panel rejected the Employer's argument the original panel erred with respect to the issue of burden of proof. The panel accepted the Employer's argument that the a panel familiar with the terms of the settlement agreement and hearing evidence in respect of it and declaring it void could not proceed to continue its inquiry into the original unfair labour practice complaint. The panel found the Employer raised its reasonable apprehension of bias argument in a timely fashion. As a result, the panel set aside the original panel's decision with respect to the unfair labour practice complaint.
| View Decision | View QB Decision |
07/08/2003 - Ken Leikeim and Natural Gas Employees Association and Atco Gas & Pipelines Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
05/08/2003 - David Lanktree and The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Maria Marrazzo and Debbie Lamoureux and Dennis Malayko and Capital Health Authority (University of Alberta site) - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
31/7/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146 and J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. - Formal Decision
Certification - Bars To - s. 37(2)(d) - The Board found the project agreement entered into between CLAC and the employer to be a bar to two separate certification applications by the Carpenters and the Boilermakers.
Construction Industry - Collective Agreement - s. 183 - The Board rejected the unions' request to revisit the Board's previous jurisprudence finding s. 183 only applied to collective agreements covered by the registration provisions of the Code.
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 (the "Carpenters") and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Local Lodge 146 (the "Boilermakers") both applied for certification for respective general construction units of employees of J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. (the "Employer") working at the Grand Prairie site known as "GPOP". The Christian Labour Association of Canada Local 63 ("CLAC") claims representational rights for employees in both units. CLAC and the Employer claim they have a collective agreement (either the GPOP Project Agreement or their Provincial Agreement) that operates as a time bar to both certification applications. The Carpenters and Boilermakers raise a number of arguments supporting the position these agreements are not bars to their certification applications. In addition, the unions ask the Board to re-examine the application of section 183 of the Labour Relations Code and to find it applies to all collective agreements in construction, creating a mandatory open period every two years.
The Board identified the two primary questions before the panel as being:
1. Does either the GPOP Agreement or the Provincial Agreement create a time bar to the applications for certification?
2. If either agreement creates a time bar, does section 183 apply and either void the agreement or alter its termination date to March 31, thereby making either application for certification timely?
Held, The Board found the GPOP Agreement to be a time bar to both certification applications. The Board relied on the concept of the hiring hall exception to establish ratification of the GPOP Agreement for both carpenters and boilermakers. With respect to the Carpenter's certification application, the Board found the GPOP Agreement created a time bar to the Carpenter's application. CLAC's representation capacity for carpenters was that of a certified bargaining agent. CLAC met its obligation to ratify the GPOP Agreement at the time the first carpenter referred by CLAC was hired on the project pursuant to the hiring hall clause in the GPOP Agreement. The Board made a similar finding with respect to the Boilermaker's application. The referral and hiring of the first group of boilermakers who were members in good standing with CLAC resulted in the GPOP Agreement becoming a valid collective agreement vis a vis boilermakers. Finally, the Board rejected the Unions request to re-examine the Board's interpretation of section 183 and find that the section applies to all collective agreements in the construction industry. The Board rejected this approach confirming its previous decisions on this point that held section 183 applied only to collective agreements negotiated within the registration provisions of the Code.
| View Decision | View QB Decision |
21/7/2003 - Moses Peters and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146, Welding Services Inc. and ATCO Power - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
21/7/2003 - United Utility Workers' Association of Canada and TransAlta Utilities Corporation - Formal Decision
Employer - Interference - s. 148(1)(a) - Board found employer communication to employees regarding a union vote deciding whether to pursue court proceedings aimed at terminating a pension plan was not in breach of s. 148(1)(a) of the Code.
The United Utility Workers' Association of Canada (the "Union"), alleged Transalta Utilities Corporation (the "Employer") interfered with the formation or administration of a trade union contrary to section 148(1)(a)(i) of the Code and interfered with the Union's representation of employees in breach of section 148(1)(a)(ii) of the Code. The basis for the complaint was an Employer communication sent to employees during a Union vote of its membership relating to the issue of pursuing further court proceedings aimed at terminating a pension plan administered by the Employer's parent corporation. The Employer denied the allegations claiming the protections under section 148(1)(a) were not intended to protect the Union's pursuit of court actions like the one in issue. Alternatively, the Employer claims the defence under section 148(2) applies.
Held, The Board dismissed the complaint on the basis Union failed to prove the Employer's communications amounted to interference under the section. The Board concluded the average employee would not have been negatively influenced against the Union given the context in which the communication was issued. The Board noted this was not a case requiring heightened sensitivity around the employer communication. The communication took place in the context of a mature bargaining relationship, did not occur in the context of an organizing drive or in the context of negotiations for a new collective agreement and did not relate to collective agreement rights or matters that had been the subject of collective bargaining. The Board also concluded the issue was not a purely internal union matter and that much of the information in the communication in issue had already been provided to employees in previous communications from the Employer. The Board found it unnecessary address the issue of whether section 148(1)(a) was intended to protect the Union's pursuit of court actions like the one in issue, given its finding there had been no breach of section 148(1)(a) even if it applied in the context of this case.
| View Decision |
18/7/2003 - United Nurses of Alberta, Local #227 and The Good Samaritan Society (A Lutheran Social Service Organization) - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
15/7/2003 - Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Robert Drader, Dennis Mohler and Jordan Rose and Ergo Electric Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
15/7/2003 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Gateway Casino Canada Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
14/7/2003 - A Board-initiated application under Section 162.1 of the Labour Relations Code to establish a region-wide direct nursing bargaining unit affecting Regions 1, 2, 4 and 5, the Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, the United Nurses of Alberta, (Various Locals) and the Alberta Mental Health Board - Letter Decision
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View QB Decision | View Summary of Dispositions |
9/7/2003 - Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd. and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 and Certain employees employed by Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd. - Order
| View Decision |
7/7/2003 - Peter Langford and The Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Southern Alberta) and Jim Courage - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
7/7/2003 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Battle River Regional Division No. 31- Formal Decision
Bargaining Unit - Appropriateness - Certification - s.35(1)(a) - Board found bargaining unit of "All employees in Beaver Ward except teachers and bus drivers" to not be appropriate for collective bargaining. As a result, certification application dismissed.
The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (the "Union) filed two alternative applications for certification affecting the Battle River Regional Division No. 31 (the "Employer'). Board officer recommended one application be dismissed on basis unit was not appropriate for collective bargaining and recommended bargaining unit for remaining application be amended to read, "All employees in Beaver Ward except teachers and bus drivers." Officer recommended this unit was an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. The Employer objected to the Board officer's recommendations.
Held, Certification application dismissed. The bargaining unit was not appropriate for collective bargaining. After reviewing Information Bulletin #9 addressing bargaining unit appropriateness in the school sector and general bargaining unit principles, the Board rejected the Union's argument that a ward based bargaining unit should be accepted because a division wide bargaining was too difficult to organize. The Board went on to find the unit to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons including because the unit would leave many similar employees outside the unit, the Employer's operations were highly integrated and centrally controlled and the Employer's operations were not linked or organized on ward boundaries. In addition, the Board stated further fragmentation of the Employer's work force should be avoided.
| View Decision |
7/7/2003 - Monad Contractors Ltd. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
3/7/2003 - Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Co. (KBR) and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 and Certain employees employed by KBR and represented by the UA Local 488 - Findings and Directives
| View Decision |
30/06/2003 - United Nurses of Alberta and Calgary Regional Health Authority and Health Sciences Association of Alberta - Formal Decision
Bargaining Unit - Exclusions - Challenges - s.12(3)(o) - Nurses employed in two programs operated by the Calgary Health Region were properly included in a HSAA bargaining unit as opposed to a UNA bargaining unit.
The United Nurses of Alberta (UNA) argued all registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses ("nurses") working in two programs (Mental Health Services Consulting and Community Geriatric Mental Health Service) operated by the Calgary Health Region (the "CHR") should not be included in the Health Sciences Association of Alberta ("HSAA") bargaining unit described as "all employees when employed in a community health professional or technical capacity" but rather, should be included in UNA's bargaining unit covering "all employees when employed in community health nursing".
Held, The Board held the nurses in issue properly belonged in the HSAA bargaining unit. The evidence showed the individuals hired to staff these consulting positions were from a variety of health care disciplines. In addition, the programs assign clients to consultants based on geographic considerations and not based on the specific qualifications of the consultant. Finally, neither program offers ongoing direct nursing case to clients. Rather, these services were either provided by other staff, the clients physician or family.
| View Decision |
27/06/2003 -Health Regions 1 to 9 and the Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, United Nurses of Alberta (various locals), Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Canadian Union of Public Employees (various locals), Alberta Mental Health Board, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 - Formal Decision
Health Care Legislation - Determinations - Board addressed various applications and determinations relating to the health care legislation and regulations passed in the spring of 2003.
The Alberta Legislature passed legislation and regulations mandating the consolidation of bargaining units and reducing the number of collective agreements applicable to regional health authorities. At about the same time, the number of regional health authorities were reduced by Ministerial order to nine. In summary, the scheme was to legislate four region wide standard functional health care bargaining units in each of the nine new regions. As a result of the Board's legislated mandate to implement these changes as soon as practically possible, the Board initiated 36 applications and opened a file for each new bargaining relationship. It ordered the new regional health authorities to provide informational returns listing the employees in each of the new region wide units created by the legislation. Board officer's used this information as the basis for 36 investigative reports, one for each new bargaining unit. The parties were provided with these reports together with the data upon which they were based and were given an opportunity to respond with objections.
Held, The decision deals with the 36 applications and any objections raised with respect to each officer's report. The decision is broadly broken down into system wide issue and region-specific issues. The region wide issues were: Determination objections; Employer names; Wording of bargaining units; Missing employees; "Type of agreement" determinations; Contested/uncontested unit status; One agreement or many?; Defer to bargaining; Waiver of Receiving Agreement Votes; and Effective dates of declarations. The remaining issues were region specific and covered such items as receiving agreement votes, the status of specific health care facilities and the status of staff associations. Given the volume of findings, a summary of specific findings has not been provided.
| View ALRB Decision | View Summary of Dispositions | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
| View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision | |View QB Decision |
27/06/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146 and J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
26/06/2003 - Construction and General Workers' Union, Local No. 92 and Coram Construction Ltd. - Formal Decision
Construction Industry - Definitions - s. 12(3)(q) - Board dismissed employer's objection to a certification application on basis two bridge construction projects were covered by different sectors. Smaller bridges built as part of a general roadbuilding contract are included in the roadbuilding sector. Larger bridges built under separate agreements for the bridge alone are included in the general construction agreement. The primary distinction was whether the bridge in question was let as part of a contract to build roads (a bridge included in the Roadbuilding and Heavy Construction sector), or was let separately as a contract to build a bridge (a bridge included in the General Construction Sector).
The Construction and General Workers' Union Local No. 92 (the "Union") applied for certification of a unit of employees of Coram Construction ("Coram") described as "All roadbuilding and heavy construction labourers". Coram objected to the application on the basis it did not employ labourers performing work in the roadbuilding and heavy construction sector. Alternatively, Coram submitted the Union did not have the requisite support as another of Coram's projects utilized labourers performing the same tasks as those applied for.
Held, Board dismissed employer's objection to a certification application on basis two bridge construction projects were covered by different sectors. Smaller bridges built as part of a general roadbuilding contract are included in the roadbuilding sector. Larger bridges built under separate agreements for the bridge alone are included in the general construction agreement. The primary distinction was whether the bridge in question was let as part of a contract to build roads (a bridge included in the Roadbuilding and Heavy Construction sector), or was let separately as a contract to build a bridge (a bridge included in the General Construction Sector).
| View Decision |
25/06/2003 - Terry O'Donnell and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union of Canada,Local Union No. 72-A and Greater St. Albert Regional Division No. 29 - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
25/06/2003 - Wayne Katarynchuk and Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers' and Grain Millers International Union, Local 52 and Canada Bread Company, Limited - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
25/06/2003 - Ahmad Hamid and Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47 and Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
17/06/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and J & N Technical Services Ltd., Flint Energy Services Ltd. and Flint Integrated Services Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
09/06/2003 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Alberta Mental Health Board - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
06/06/2003 - J.V. Driver Installations Ltd. v. Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
06/06/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 v. J.V. Driver Installations Ltd.- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
03/06/2003 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Tri-Municipal Family Leisure Centre Corporation and The City of Spruce Grove - Court of Queen's Bench Decision
Sale of Business - Successor Rights - s.46(1) - Application for successorship with respect of the transfer of the provision of indoor pool services from the City of Spruce Grove to the Tri-Municipal Family Leisure Centre Corporation denied.
The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (the "Union") applied for judicial review of a Board decision denying the Union's application for a declaration that a successorship occurred with respect to the transfer of the provision of indoor pool services from the City of Spruce Grove (the "City") to the Tri-Municipal Family Leisure Centre Corporation (the "Corporation").
Held, The application was denied. The Board's decision was not patently unreasonable despite finding that several indicia of successorship were present. The Board looked at all of the factors and reasonably determined that a "going concern" had not been transferred.
| View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
27/05/2003 - Heart River Housing Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 838 and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 838- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
26/05/2003 - United Nurses of Alberta, Local 196 and Capital Health Authority and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
23/05/2003 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 424 and Zephyr Electric Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
23/05/2003 - Shawn Penney v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and TIC Canada (2000) Shawn Penney and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and TIC Canada (2000) ULC- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
13/05/2003 - Mike Spinelli and Civic Service Union 52 and the City of Edmonton - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
13/05/2003 - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 and The Corporation of the City of Calgary - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
11/05/2003 - Construction Labour Relations - An Alberta Association Roofers (Provincial) Trade Division v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 1325 and 2103, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 8 and Construction And General Workers' Union, Local No. 92 - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
08/05/2003 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Continuing Care Employers' Bargaining Association and Capital Health Authority and Alberta Mental Health Board and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta and Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Appeal Decision
Approved hospitals - s. 96(1) - The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the approved hospitals list despite the fact this list was referenced in s. 96 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code.
The Appellant appealed the decision of the chambers judge which confirmed the Labour Relations Board was correct when it decided it did not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the approved hospitals list made pursuant to s.44(2) of the Hospitals Act.
Held, Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the approved hospitals list despite the fact this list was referenced in s.96 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code.
| View Decision |
07/05/2003 - Neil Leadbeater and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
02/05/2003 - Augustana University College Faculty Association and Augustana University College - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
02/05/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and Monad Contractors Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
.
02/05/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and G & C Building Contractors Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
30/04/2003 - National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local No. 99 and Australian Canadian Agricultural Machinery Corporation - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
29/04/2003 - Local 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Robert Drader, Dennis Mohler and Jordan Rose and Ergo Electric Inc. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
29/04/2003 - 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 |
28/04/2003 - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 and Monad Contractors Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
23/04/2003 - Pardee Equipment Employees Association v. Brandt Tractor Ltd. - Formal Decision
Employers Interference - s.148(1)(a)(i) and (ii) - Board found the Employer breached s.148(1) by allowing employee meetings on company premises meant to undermine the Association's executive and by sending correspondence to employees intended to incite opposition to the Association's efforts to pursue grievances and amend its constitution.
The Pardee Equipment Employees' Association (the "Association") filed a complaint against Brandt Tractor Ltd. (the "Employer") alleging breaches of sections 148(a)(i) and (ii) of the Code. The Association alleged the Employer knowingly permitted dissenting members, that sought to undermine the Association's duly elected executive of the Association, to distribute notices and hold meetings on company premises. The Association further took issue with two Employer documents sent to employees. The Employer denied a breach of the Code and submitted one of the complaints was untimely.
Held, The Board found the Employer, in breach of section 148(1)(a)(i), knowingly interfered with the Association's administration by assisting an employee group unhappy with the current executive of the Association in its attempt to overthrow the duly elected executive. The Board further found the Employers' actions in sending correspondence to bargaining unit members breached sections 148(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Code. The Board rejected the defence under section 148(2)(c) on the basis the correspondence amounted to undue influence. The Board also rejected the Employer's argument that in order to find a breach of section 148(1) there must be direct evidence that employees were actually influenced by the Employer's actions. Finally, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 16(2) of the Code to dismiss the complaint as having been filed more than 90 days the complainant knew or ought to have known of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.
| View Decision |
22/04/03 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1007 and Alberta Labour Relations Board and EPCOR Utilities Inc. and Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada, Local No. 829 - Court of Queen's Bench Decision
Union - Prohibited practices - s. 151(b) - Court dismissed judicial review application seeking to overturn Board's finding that the allegations, even if accepted as true, did not demonstrate a breach of s. 151(b).
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1007 (the "Union" or the "Electrical Workers") sought judicial review of a decision of the Board that summarily dismissed, pursuant to s. 16(4)(e), the Union's unfair labour practice complaint against the Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada, Local No. 829 ("CEP"). The Electrical Workers' original complaint alleged the CEP breached s.151 of the Code by entering into an agreement with Epcor Utilities Inc. ("Epcor") to extend "the provisions of the Collective agreement when it knew or ought to have known that such extension overlapped into and upon the provisions of the Collective Agreement between Epcor and the Electrical Workers." The Electrical Workers alleged the CEP bargained or attempted to bargain for Electrical Workers' members or, alternatively, that the amount and nature of any maintenance functions performed by employees in the CEP's bargaining unit was of such an extent as to bring them within the jurisdiction of the Electrical Workers' bargaining unit.
Held, The Court dismissed the Electrical Workers judicial review application. In agreeing with the Board's reasoning, the Court concluded there was no evidence the CEP did any act which could be interpreted as constituting negotiations carried out by CEP by behalf of the Electrical Workers or its members. Given this conclusion, the Court found no rational existed for overruling the Board's exercise of its jurisdiction to summarily dismiss the complaint on the ground it was without merit.
| View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
.22/04/03 - Enmax Corporation and Canadian Union of Public Employees, and The Corporation of the City of Calgary and Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Appeal Decision
Sale of a business - Successor rights - s. 46 - The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision that employees automatically transfer to the successor employer on a successorship.
ENMAX Corporation ("ENMAX") and the Corporation of the City of Calgary (the "City"), appealed a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench which overturned two decisions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board made under the successorship provision (s.46) of the Code. The Board decision at issue concluded employees of an employer caught by the successorship provisions of the Code automatically transfer to the successor employer and do not have the option of choosing to stay with the original employer and exercise whatever rights they may have under the original collective agreement. The Court of Queen's Bench found the Board's decision to be patently unreasonable.
Held, The appeal was allowed. The Court found the Court of Queen's Bench failed to conclude that the interpretation of s.46 of the Code was capable of more than one interpretation reasonably supported by the legislation, facts and policy objectives of labour relations law. The Court found the Board's interpretation of the successorship provisions to not be patently unreasonable.
| View CA Decision | View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision | View ALRB Decision |
.14/04/2003 - United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 6034, Ron Koch and Kelly Lyle and Sears Canada Inc. - Formal Decision
Employer - Interference with Employees' Rights - Section 149(a)(i) - Employee terminated in breach of s. 149(a)(i) of the Code. Termination resulted from a poor evaluation by a manager that used the cover of a large scale layoff to settle a score with an employee he did not like, who was involved in a Union campaign, and who, in particular, had invoked the union's help in challenging the manager's acts.
The United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 6034 (the "Union") filed a complaint alleging Sears Canada Inc. ("Sears") terminated two employees contrary to section 149(a)(i)(ii), and (viii) of the Labour Relations Code because the employees were supporters of the Union. Sears denied the allegation claiming the terminations were motivated by economic considerations and not by anti-union motives.
Held, The Board dismissed the complaint relating to one employee, and allowed the complaint with respect to the second employee. The first employee was terminated for economic considerations as part of a large-scale layoff and without any anti-union motivation. The second employee's termination resulted from a poor evaluation by a manager that used the cover of a large scale layoff to settle a score with an employee he did not like, who was involved in a Union campaign, and who, in particular, had invoked the union's help in challenging the manager's acts. The Board found the actions of the manager were the actions of Sears and concluded the second employee had been terminated contrary to section 149(a)(i) of the Code.
| View Decision |
11/04/2003 - Kevin Lahey and Construction and General Workers' Union, Local No. 92 and Shaw Pipe Protection Limited - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
11/04/2003 - James Brennan and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2010 and Heritage Truss & Design Ltd. - Formal Decision
Board Practice - Sections 158(e) and 161(a) - Prosecutions under these sections are conducted pursuant to the Provincial Offences Procedures Act. The Board has no role to play in such prosecutions. Future applications alleging a breach of this section should not be accepted by the Board.
The Applicant, an employee of Heritage Truss & Design Ltd., filed an application alleging the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2010 (the "Union") filed a baseless complaint against him. The Applicant alleged the filing of the complaint violated sections 158(e) and 161(a) of the Act. As the Applicant alleged violations of sections other than those the Board usually considers to authorize unfair labour practice complaints, the Board accepted the letter as a "reference of a difference" under section 16(3) of the Code.
Held, The Board dismissed the application. Section 158(e) and 161(a) cannot support an unfair labour practice complaint before the Labour Relations Board, either directly, or indirectly as a "reference of a difference" under section 16(3). Sections 158 and 161 establish "offences". In the absence of specific prosecution procedures in the Code, offences like those created by these sections must be prosecuted according to the Provincial Offences Procedures Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.P-34 and not through application to the Board.
| View Decision |
08/04/2003 - United Utility Workers' Association of Canada and TransAlta Utilities Corporation - Formal Decision
Employers - Interference with Employees' Rights - s.148(1)(a)(ii) - The Board found the requirement that employees sign a release as a precondition to receiving severance entitlement contracted between the Union and the Employer to be a breach of s.148(1)(a)(ii) of the Code.
The United Utility Workers Association of Canada (the "Union") filed a complaint alleging that TransAlta Corporation (the "Employer") interfered with the representation of employees by a trade union, contrary to section 148(1)(a)(ii) of the Labour Relations Code by requiring an employee and the Union to sign a release as a precondition to receiving a severance package. The Union argued the severance pay benefits were outlined in the collective agreement which made no mention of a release. As such, it argued the requirement for a release in this context violated section 148(1)(a) as an interference with representation of employees by a trade union. The Employer made various arguments in defense of its position including that the severance formula was specifically excluded from the collective agreement allowing management the right to impose reasonable conditions around the operation of the formula.
Held, The Board granted the Union's application. It found the agreement surrounding severance to be a contract between the Union and the Employer that did not include an obligation to sign a release to obtain the entitlement to the severance formula. The Board further found that the unilateral demand by the Employer to require a signed release as a precondition to entitlement to the severance formula was interference with representation of employees by the Union.
| View Decision |
27/03/2003 - Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Northwest Framing (Calgary) Ltd. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2103 - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
27/03/2003 - Stan Herian and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 70 and The City of Lethbridge - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
26/03/2003 - International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron workers Shopmen's Local Union 805 and Waiward Steel Fabricators Ltd. - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
25/03/2003 - Peter Gabowski and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 210 - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
21/03/2003 - Calgary Fire Fighters Association, Local 255 I.A.F.F. And The City of Calgary - Letter Decision
| View Decision |
20/03/2003 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and The Good Samaritan Society (A Lutheran Social Service Organization) and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955- Letter Decision
| View Decision |
14/03/2003 - Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Transline Ltd. - Letter Decision
