2006 Decisions

Decision Search

Earlier Decisions
Decisions Issued in 2001
Decisions Issued in 2002
Decisions Issued in 2003
Decisions Issued in 2004
Decisions Issued in 2005
Decisions Issued in 2007
Decisions Issued in 2008
Decisions of Interest


Decisions issued in 2006

18/12/2006 - Rosalyn Bayliss and UNITE HERE Local 47, Ian Robb, Joanne Moody and Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-059

| View Decision |

18/12/2006 - Brad Gignac v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) Local No. 4001, Barry Kennedy, Doug Olshewski, Pat McLaughlin and Savage Alberta Railway Inc. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-058

| View Decision |

14/12/2006 -  Health Sciences Association of Alberta and East Central Health and United Nurses of Alberta, Locals 35, 38,42, 45, 55, 69, 78, 151, 190, 192, 195, 216, 217 and 218 - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-057

| View Decision |

08/12/2006 -  United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc., Construction Labour Relations – an Alberta Association and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146 - Interim Directive

| View Decision |

07/12/2006 -  Construction Promec and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-056

| View Decision |

01/12/2006 -  Gilles Prud’Homme, Eric Klyne and Richard Cronin v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 289.

Unions – Internal Affairs - s. 26 – The Union breached s.26 of the Code by failing to constitute a trial board with a quorum as per its constitutional requirements.  All other allegations regarding breaches of s. 26 were dismissed.

The Complainants were charged under the constitution of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the “Union”) and were summoned to a trial before a trial board of the Union.  The Complainants argue the trial board had no authority to try the Complainants as the trial board was not properly constituted according to the Union’s own constitution.  Alternatively, they argued the trial process offended the procedural fairness protections set out in s.26 of the Code.

Held:  Application granted in part.  The appointment of the trial board was a breach of s.26 as it lacked the quorum according to the requirements set out in the Union’s constitution.  Insufficient substitutions were made for Executive Board members who had recused themselves to establish a quorum.  The Board dismissed the remaining arguments advanced by the Complainants including those relating to particulars, adjournments, the right to counsel, evidence, outside advice, time limits and restarting the trial.

| View Decision |

01/12/2006 - William Roy v. Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and Cormode & Dickson Construction (1983) Ltd. -Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-055

| View Decision |

28/11/2006 -  Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta , Continuing Care Employers' Bargaining Association, Alberta Mental Health Board and Capital Health Authority and The Attorney General of Alberta, the Albrta Labour Relations Board, The Alberta Federation of Labour, Health Sciences Association of Alberta, United Nurses of Alberta and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta - Court of Appeal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 276

Dues – Payment - s.114 - The Court of Appeal upheld the Board’s interpretation of how the suspension process was initiated and how it unfolded.  It further held the mandatory dues check-off regime was not a protected right under s. 2(d).

As a result of an unlawful strike in the spring of 2000 and in response to applications from the affected Employers, the Board issued a series of decisions pursuant to its powers under section 114 of the Code directing the suspension of the deduction and remittance of union dues payable to the Union.  The Union successfully sought judicial review of the Board’s decision on the ground the Board failed to properly interpret section 114 and failed to conclude section 2(d) and 11 of the Charter had been infringed.  The Employers appealed these findings.

Held,    Appeal allowed.  Section 114 did not expressly outline how the suspension process was initiated and how it unfolded. While the reviewing judge selected the reasonableness standard of review, his analysis of the interpretation of s. 114 proceeded from identifying a more compelling line of reasoning than the Board's, which was essentially a review for correctness. The Board's interpretation was one the words of the section could reasonably bear. Accordingly, the Board's interpretation should have withstood judicial review on either a patent unreasonableness or reasonableness standard. The Board's conclusion on the second issue, that a suspension directive need not be issued during the illegal strike, followed from its determination on the first issue. Given the ambiguous wording of the section, the Board's reasoning and interpretation were neither unreasonable nor patently unreasonable. With respect to constitutionality, the mandatory dues check-off regime was not a protected right under s. 2(d). It was therefore unnecessary to consider the questions of infringement and justification under s. 1.

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

27/11/2006 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 v. Westfair Foods Ltd. -Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-054

| View Decision |

20/11/2006 -  Louise Mavis Hermanson and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 829 -Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-053

| View Decision |

16/11/2006 -  Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3197 and Muskwachees Ambulance Authority Ltd. and Samson Cree Nation -Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 243

Jurisdiction – Constitutional – s.12(1) – The Board held the labour relations of a band owned corporation offering emergency medical ambulance services fell within the Alberta Board’s jurisdiction as opposed to federal jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the band.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3197 (“CUPE”) applied to be the certified bargaining agent of a unit of employees of the Muskwachees Ambulance Authority Ltd. (MAA), a corporation owned by the Samson Cree Nation (“SCN”).  The MAA and the SNC objected to the application on the basis the Alberta Labour Relations Board did not have constitutional authority to address the issues raised in the application.  In particular, the MAA and SNC argued exclusive authority over these matters rests with the SCN as a result of an aboriginal right or, in the alternative, a treaty right to self determination or self government.  Alternatively, it argues the matter falls within exclusive federal competence.

Held,    Jurisdiction over the certification application rests with the Alberta Board.  There is neither an aboriginal nor a treaty right to self determination or self government that includes exclusive authority over the MAA’s labour relations nor does the matter fall within federal as opposed to provincial jurisdiction.

| View Decision |

07/11/2006 -  Mark Hall and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Martyn Piper, Chester Fergusson and Safway Scaffold Services, Inc. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-052

| View Decision |

07/11/2006 -  The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Capital Health and Health Sciences Association of Alberta - Letter Decision- Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-051

| View Decision |

06/11/2006 -  West Edmonton Mall and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 - Findings and Directives

| View Decision |

01/11/2006 -  United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Paul Pelley, Jeff Bemister, Ken Costello, Ricardo Vey, William Hedlund, Mike Williams, Barry Pardy, Jeff Blundon, Jim Fowler and Fred Neil affecting Alberta Orphan Industries Limited, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Horizon Construction Management Limited and the Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - and - International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955, Floyd Soper and Jeff Holloway and Alberta Orphan Industries Limited, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Penney Industrial Fabricators Ltd. and Horizon Construction Management Limited - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-050

| View Decision |

01/11/2006 -  Eric Klyne, Gilles Prud'homme, Rochelle Garrett and David Ammond and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and James Hawreliak, Larry Schell, Jim Watson and Tim Brower - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-049

| View Decision |

20/10/2006 - Finning (Canada) Division of Finning International Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 99 and the Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court of Queen's Bench - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 228

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

Finning (Canada) Division of Finning International Inc. (the “Employer”) sought judicial review of a Board decision finding it had violated section 147(3) of the Code by altering terms and conditions of employment after service of a notice to commence collective bargaining for the renewal of the collective agreement. The Board found the layoff of 70 members of the bargaining unit was a prima facie violation of section 147(3) and that the layoffs did not fit within any of the exceptions found within section 147(3) and therefore was a violation of the section.

Held: The Board made no reviewable error in finding the layoffs violated section 147(3) of the Code. The layoffs occurred after a notice to commence collective bargaining occurred and were therefore a prima facie violation of the section unless the Employer’s actions fell within one of the listed exceptions. The Board’s decision that the layoffs did not fall within the listed exceptions contained no reviewable error. First, the Board’s conclusion no established custom or practice had been established was not patently unreasonable. Second, the Board’s conclusion the Employer was required to act reasonably and in good faith when it exercised its right to contract out and in turn lay off employees was not unreasonable. Although the collective agreement did not limit the Employer’s right to contract work out to third parties which would in turn result in layoffs, the collective agreement provided no protection where the layoffs were not the result of economic downturn but rather the result of a desire to cut costs and improve profits. The Employer also failed to inform the Union of its intentions to contract out this work in a timely manner despite the fact preparations to contract out this work had been ongoing for many months prior to the service of the notice to commence collective bargaining.

| View QB Decision | View ALRB Decision |

17/10/2006 -  United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Firestone Energy Corporation, Suncor Energy Inc., First North Catering and Rentokil Initial Canada Limited c.o.b. as Initial Security, Wayne Prins and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-048

| View Decision |

06/10/2006 -  National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (Caw-Canada), Local No. 4050 and Waste Management of Canada Corporation - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 212

Employees – Status Determination – s.12(3) - The Board held the Union’s certificate had province wide effect and applied to employees at the locations in dispute. The certificate language suggesting province wide application was not amended by agreement, under bargaining or abandonment of bargaining rights.

The National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (the “Union”) alleges Waste Management of Canada Corporation (the “Employer”) refuses to acknowledge employees at two rural landfill sites fall within the scope of the bargaining certificate held by the Union. It seeks a determination finding the employees fall within the scope of the Union’s certificate. The Employer opposes the application. It says the current certificate covers only the original two locations in existence at the time the certificate was issued and that any other sites are represented by the Union through voluntary recognition.

 Held: The Board granted the Union’s application. The original certificate wording contained no geographic limitation on its scope. The subsequent amendment excluded a specific location that is not relevant to this application. As such, the certificate is presumed to have province wide effect subject to this one site specific limitation. This presumption was not rebutted by any agreement between the parties – implied or express- that it should have anything other than province wide effect. Nor was this presumption rebutted by evidence of either under bargaining of the certificate or by abandonment by the Union of its bargaining rights. The Union consistently treated the certificate as having province wide effect. Although the Employer from time to time took the position the certificate did not apply to employees at new locations, in the event of a dispute or uncertainty, it ultimately agreed with the Union’s interpretation of the meaning of the certificate wording.

| View Decision |

15/09/2006 -  XL Meats Employees Association and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and XL Foods Inc. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-047

| View Decision |

15/09/2006 -  United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Paul Pelley, Jeff Bemister, Ken Costello, Ricardo Vey, William Hedlund, Mike Williams, Barry Pardy, Jeff Blundon, Jim Fowler and Fred Neil and Alberta Orphan Industries Limited, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Horizon Construction Management Limited and the Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - and - International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955, Floyd Soper and Jeff Holloway and Alberta Orphan Industries Limited, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Penney Industrial Fabricators Ltd. and Horizon Construction Management Limited - and - Alberta Orphan Industries Limited and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63, Horizon Construction Management Ltd. and Penney Industrial Fabricators Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-046

| View Decision |

13/09/2006 -  International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 424, and Firestone Energy Corporation, Wayne Prins and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 424 - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-045

| View Decision |

12/09/2006 -   Rodney Heinrichs and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and James Smith - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 192

Natural Justice – s. 26 – The right to a fair hearing set out in section 26 of the Code demands a complainant proves actual bias where the union acts within the scope of its constitution. The lower standard of reasonable apprehension of bias will apply where it acts outside the scope of its constitution.

The Complainant, a member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the “Union”) faces charges under the Union’s constitution. He objects to the composition of the panel charged with adjudicating those charges claiming there is a reasonable apprehension of bias that undermines his right to a “fair hearing” under section 26 of the Code. One member of the panel hearing the internal union charges is a member of another Union entity that is directing a lawsuit against the Complainant and which addresses similar facts as those alleged in the union disciplinary charges. The Union opposes the application.

 Held: The Board dismissed the complaint holding there had been no contravention of s.26 of the Code. When dealing with internal union disciplinary matters, s.26 demands actual bias be proved where the Union acts within the scope of its constitution. Where it acts outside of that scope, the lower standard of reasonable apprehension of bias will apply. On the facts of this case, the Union acted in accordance with it constitution. As a result, the standard of actual bias applies. As no evidence of actual bias exists, the complaint is dismissed.

| View Decision |

12/09/2006 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Ileen Fry and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-044

| View Decision |

31/08/2006 -   United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Paul Pelley, Jeff Bemister, Ken Costello, Ricardo Vey, William Hedlund, Mike Williams, Barry Pardy, Jeff Blundon, Jim Fowler, Fred Neil, Alberta Orphan Industries Limited, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Horizon Construction Management Limited and the Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63- Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-043

| View Decision |

30/08/2006 - United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Gateway Casinos G.P. Inc. and Howard Worrell - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-042

| View Decision |

30/08/2006 -   United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Paul Pelley, Jeff Bemister, Ken Costello, Ricardo Vey, William Hedlund, Mike Williams, Barry Pardy, Jeff Blundon, Jim Fowler, Fred Neil, Alberta Orphan Industries Limited, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Horizon Construction Management Limited and the Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63- Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-041

| View Decision |

29/08/2006 - Teamsters Canada Rail Conference and Athabasca Northern Railway Ltd.  - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-040

| View Decision |

29/08/2006 - United Nurses of Alberta, Local 219, The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Shepherd's Care Foundation - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 178

Bargaining Unit – Appropriateness – s.34(1)(c) – The Board found the units applied for (“All employees … when employed in direct nursing care or nursing instruction” and “All employee … when employed in auxiliary nursing”) to be appropriate units in the context of an aging in place facility. The Board applied the general considerations found in Information Bulletin #9 in reaching its conclusions.

The United Nurses of Alberta, Local 219 (UNA) and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (“AUPE”) made separate certification applications for two groups of employees of Shepherd’s Care Foundation employed at Kensington Village. UNA applied for “All employees … when employed in direct nursing care or nursing instruction.” AUPE applied for “All employees … when employed in auxiliary nursing.” The Board Officer’s Report concluded the units were not appropriate for collective bargaining as the only appropriate unit for this type of facility is an “all employee” unit. The Unions objected to the Board Officer’s conclusions.

 Held: The Board concluded the units applied for are appropriate for collective bargaining. Aging in place facilities such as Kensington Village are a relatively new and unique concept in care. They are neither senior citizen’s homes nor are they strictly dedicated to the provision of health care services along the lines of a nursing home or hospital. Rather, the majority of accommodations are for individuals in an independent living setting with related services such as maintenance, housekeeping, grounds keeping, laundry, transportation and entertainment provided. Individuals then move within the facility to higher levels of support as their health needs increase. Considering the prime purpose and function of the facility, the Board concluded a small number of nursing home beds (less than 10%) was insufficient to have Information Bulletin #10 apply. Turning to whether the units applied for were “an appropriate unit”, the Board applied the factors set out in Information Bulletin #9 to the facts of the case and concluded the units applied for were appropriate for collective bargaining.

| View Decision |

24/08/2006 - Fran Blue and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 1118 and Albert Johnson - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-039

| View Decision |

18/08/2006 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Firestone Energy Corporation, Suncor Energy Inc., First North Catering and Rentokil Initial Canada Limited c.o.b. as Initial Security, Wayne Prins and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 6 and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-038

| View Decision |

1/08/2006 - Health Sciences Association of Alberta and The Good Samaritan Society (A Lutheran Social Service Organization) - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-037

| View Decision |

1/08/2006 - John Koslowsky, General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362, Richard Eichel and Tony Atkins - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-036

| View Decision |

19/07/2006 - Calgary Board of Education Staff Association and Calgary School District No. 19/Calgary Board of Education - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-035

| View Decision |

12/07/2006 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 and Construction and General Workers' Union, Local No. 92 and ATCO Structures Inc. - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 157

Registration – Bargaining – s. 176(1)(a) - The Board concluded an agreement that adopted completely and without limitation the terms of the registration collective agreement - including broad language recognizing the union’s right to act as bargaining agent – resulted in the employer being an employer within the meaning of section 176(1)(a).

Two building trades unions – Local 448 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (“Local 488”) and Local 92 of the Construction and General Workers’ Union (“Local 92”) – seek determinations that the legal effect of the Camp Installation Collective Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the Unions and ATCO Structures Inc. (“ATCO”) is to bind ATCO to the scheme of construction registration bargaining established by the Labour Relations Code. The Unions say the work covered by the agreement is construction work and, ATCO is, to the extent it carries out his work, an employer “engaged in the construction industry.” The Unions further argues the intention behind the language in the Agreement is to bind ATCO to the scheme of construction registration bargaining pursuant to section 176(1)(a) of the Code. Alternatively, it argues section 176(1)(b) applies. ATCO counters that is not customarily engaged in the construction industry and, in the alternative, if its activities bring it within the scope of the construction industry, it is at most a section 176(1)(b) employer bound to registration only for the duration of the Agreement. The work in question is the assembly of portable, modular housing units into camp facilities for remote worksites.

Held: The work in question – the installation of camps- meets the statutory definition of construction. As a result, ATCO is an employer engaged in the construction industry. The determination whether an employer is bound to registration by section 176(1)(a) or (b) is a matter of the intention of the parties to be determined by an interpretation of the agreement to adhere to the terms of the registration agreement. In this case, the Agreement adopted completely the provisions of the relevant registration collective agreement. Importantly, this includes the recognition provisions of those agreements. The Board held the adoption of this language evidenced an intent to engage in a direct bargaining relationship created by a full voluntary recognition of the Unions. As such, it is an employer engaged in the construction industry with whom the trade union has established the right to collective bargaining within the meaning of section 176(1)(a).

| View Decision |

13/07/2006 - Mark Hall and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Martyn Piper, Chester Fergusson and Safway Scaffold Services Inc. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-034

| View Decision |

12/07/2006 - John Reisinger and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local No. 551, Steve Hoff, Robert Lyster and Camrose Pipe Corporation - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-033

| View Decision |

5/07/2006 - Health Sciences Association of Alberta and Dynacare Kasper Medical Laboratories Inc. -  Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 143

Bargaining Unit – Appropriateness – s. 34(1)(c) - The Board held neither unit applied for was “an” appropriate unit for collective bargaining. The exclusion of a significant number of employees who shared functionally integrated work, a high degree of common goals and interests and a strong community of interest resulted in the units being inappropriate.

The Health Sciences Association of Alberta (the “ Union”) sought certification for two groups of employees of Dynacare Kasper Medical Laboratories (the “Employer”), a corporation providing comprehensive laboratory testing services to various clients. These services are provided through three main branches: the Base Lab, Patient Service Centre (“PSC’s”) and Rapid Response Labs (“RRL’s”). The units applied for were “All employees except Base Lab Personnel” and “All employees except Rapid Response and Base Lab Personnel.” The issue before the Board was whether one or both of these units was appropriate for collective bargaining.

Held: Neither of the units applied for was “an” appropriate unit for collective bargaining. While the employees included in the proposed bargaining units share a community of interest, the exclusion of Base Lab personnel made the units inappropriate for collective bargaining. While these three groups of employees all have somewhat different interests and differing amounts of education, they are functionally integrated, share to a high degree common goals and interests, and share a strong community of interest. In addition, excluding the Base Lab employees from the proposed units would be inconsistent with the Employer’s organizational structure and work processes. Finally, the exclusion would be arbitrary.

| View Decision |

4/07/2006 -  Paul MacDonald, Flint Energy Services Ltd., Firestone Energy Corporation and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63   Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-032

| View Decision |

28/06/2006 -  Ahmad Hamid and Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47, Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Limited and the Alberta Labour Relations Board - Court Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 126

Board - Practice – s. 12(2)(f) – The Court of Queen’s Bench quashed a decision of the Board on the basis the Board erred in not considering whether to exercise its discretion to apply the doctrine of res judicata once it had established the preconditions of the doctrine had been met.

The Applicant sought judicial review of a Board decision dismissing a breach of the duty of fair representation complaint against the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 47 (the “Union”). The original complaint before the Board related to the Union’s actions in dealing with the Applicant’s layoff and ensuing grievance against Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Ltd. (the “Employer”). The Board dismissed the complaint as being res judicata.

Held: The Court granted the application for judicial review. The Court concluded the Board was incorrect in not considering whether to exercise its discretion to apply the doctrine of res judicata once it had established the preconditions of the doctrine had been met.

| View Court Decision | View Board Decision |

22/06/2006 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 113

Employers – Interference with Union – s. 148(a)(i) – Employers – Interference with Employees’ Rights – s. 148(a)(ii) – An employer rule that states time off for union business is not time credited toward hours worked for overtime pay does not violate section 148 of the Code.

 Employers – Anti-Union Attitude – s. 149(a)(iv), (viii) and g(i) – The Employer’s rule that states time off for union business is not time credited toward hours worked for overtime pay does not violate section 149. There was no evidence of an improper motive for the rule. In addition, the rule does not discriminate on the basis of the employees’ union involvement.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 (the “Union”) alleges Lakeside Feeders Ltd. (the “Employer”) breached sections 148 and 149 of the Code by refusing to treat time spent in collective bargaining meetings or hearings before the Alberta Labour Relations Board as time worked for the purposes of calculating overtime. The Employer argues its workplace rule does not breach of the Code. Time spent on Union business is an excused absence and treated the same way as any other kind of excused absence where no credit is given for time worked when an employee does not work.

Held, The Board dismissed the Union’s application. Addressing the alleged breach of section 149, the Board held the evidence failed to establish an improper motive for the Employer’s decision to treat time off for union business as an excused absence. The application also failed on the basis the excused absence rule does not discriminate on the basis of the employees’ union involvement. The employees are treated the same as any other employee or group of employees taking time off for approved leaves – whether for union business or otherwise. The differential treatment is based on hours worked, rather than on a ground prohibited by the Code. The Board also dismissed the Union’s complaint under sections 148(a)(i) and (ii). There is no obligation under the Code for an employer to credit employees for time spent away from work while on union business. While employers and unions are free to address this issue during collective bargaining, an employer’s refusal to include this time as time worked for the purposes of its overtime policy does not violate section 148.

| View Decision |

20/06/2006 -  Health Sciences Association of Alberta and Guardian Ambulance Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-031

| View Decision |

16/06/2006 -  Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 707 and Northern Lights Health Region - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 99

Abandonment – s.s.12(3)(o) – The Board concluded the Union had abandoned its bargaining rights to certain employees as the Union consciously decided to not assert a claim to represent them for a period of approximately 5 ½ years. It dismissed the assertion bargaining rights had been abandoned for a second group of employees as there had been no such conscious decision made with respect to these employees.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 707 (“CEP”) represents most of the employees employed by the Northern Lights Health Region providing general support services. The bargaining unit status of eleven employees (six from Fort McMurray and four from High Level) is in dispute. The primary issue is whether bargaining rights for these employees have been abandoned. The factual basis for the case involves a complex bargaining history culminating in changes brought about by the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003.

Held, The Board concluded there has been abandonment of bargaining rights with respect to the six Fort McMurray employees, but not in respect of the remaining four High Level employees. With respect to the Fort McMurray employees, a period of 5 ½ years including three rounds of bargaining is sufficient to result in abandonment. The Union knew of the existence of the employees and consciously decided to assert no claim to them. No such intentional relinquishment of bargaining rights occurred in the case of the High Level employees despite a period of disuse of bargaining rights of almost 6 years. There was no evidence demonstrating the Union had knowledge of these employees much less that they were being treated as out of scope. The failure to represent these employees for approximately 6 years, - the last two years of which were against the backdrop of the Bill 27 process and a change to both the employer and the bargaining agent of those employees – is not nearly long enough to conclude that the Union has lost claim to represent these employees.

| View Decision |

16/06/2006 -  Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers' and Grain Millers International Union, Local 252 and Trish Kennelly and Weston Bakeries Limited - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-030

| View Decision |

12/06/2006 -  Carey Kopp, Andy Crocker, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-029

| View Decision |

07/06/2006 -  Basil Byrne affecting International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 and Gary Vegelis - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-028

| View Decision |

07/06/2006 -  Ismail Mourad and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 37 - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-027

| View Decision |

07/06/2006 -  Teamsters Canada Rail Conference and Athabasca Northern Railway - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-026

| View Decision |

30/05/2006 -  Teamsters Canada Rail Conference and Athabasca Northern Railway - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-025

| View Decision |

30/05/2006 -  Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Employees Association of Calgary and Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-024

| View Decision |

26/05/2006 -  William Sutherland and the Alberta and Northwest Territories (District of MacKenzie) Regional Council of Carpenters and Allied Workers Southern Office Local Union 2103 and Bruce Payne - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-023

| View Decision |

26/05/2006 -  Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 34G and Transcontinental Printing 2005 G.P. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-022

| View Decision |

23/05/2006 -  Imre Robert Horvath and Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Tim Brower, Dale Crowe, Gordon Spackman and PCL Intracon Power Inc. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-021

| View Decision |

15/05/2006 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Gateway Casinos GP Inc. - Consent Order

| View Decision |

09/05/2006 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Mark Kovatch and Westfair Foods Ltd., Bruce Kent, Elizabeth Lietz, Scott Short, Merv Newton and Christina Bullis - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-020

| View Decision |

09/05/2006 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Anthian Lual and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-019

| View Decision |

09/05/2006 -  Robert Melnychuk and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146, Warren Fraleigh, Dale Werner, Morgan Fedak, the Boilermaker Apprenticeship Administration Agency (Alberta) and Allan Belter and Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-018

| View Decision |

09/05/2006 -  Teamsters Canada Rail Conference and Athabasca Northern Railway - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-017

| View Decision |

02/05/2006 -  Zhi-Yong Liu and Xinlong Cheung and United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 5885, Dwayne McEwan and Quality Steel Foundries Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-016

| View Decision |

24/04/2006 -  Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and Health Sciences Association of Alberta and Capital Health Authority - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 70

Employees – Status Determinations – s. 12(3)(o) – The Board made determinations deciding the proper bargaining unit allocation for several classifications of “assistants’ employed in the community health operations of the Capital Health Authority.

The Board addressed the proper bargaining unit allocation of several classifications of “assistants” employed in the community health operations of the Capital Health Authority namely, Dental Assistants II and Registered Dental Assistants, Physical Therapy Assistants and Rehab Assistants, and Speech Language Pathology Assistants. Prior to the passage of Bill 27, employees in these classifications were included in the Board’s standard community health support bargaining unit – an amalgam of two standard hospital bargaining units - auxiliary nursing care and general support services. The passage of Bill 27 required the integration of these employees into one of the four standard bargaining units for hospitals. Ultimately the Board was required to determine whether these employees fell within the auxiliary nursing care, general support services or paramedical professional and technical bargaining unit.

 Held, After reviewing the evidence relating to the training and work of each of the classifications in dispute, the Board determined Dental Assistants II and Registered Dental Assistants were one and the same and would be treated as such for the purposes of this decision. The Board reached the same conclusion with respect to Physical Therapy Assistants and Rehab Assistants. After outlining the boundaries of the auxiliary nursing unit as being the provision of medical or personal care, with a high degree of direct patient contact, with some continuity, and under the direct or remote supervision of a registered nurse, the Board concluded none of the employees fell within the auxiliary nursing care bargaining unit. None of them perform “support nursing” tasks as their duties are not performed under the clinical supervision or direction of a registered nurse. The Board then addressed whether the three groups fell within the paramedical professional and technical bargaining unit or the general support services unit. While all of the employees in question performed “paramedical functions”, only dental assistants and rehab assistants perform work of a sufficiently technical nature as to allow for their inclusion in the paramedical and professional technical bargaining unit. Speech language pathology assistants remain in the general support services unit.

| View Decision | View Court Decision | View Decision |

12/04/2006 -  Jan Noster and and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325, Barrie Regan, Alberta and Northwest Territories (District of MacKenzie), Regional Council of Carpenters and Allied Workers, Martyn Piper and The International Body of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America - Formal Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 51

Unions – Discrimination – s. 152(1)(a) – The Union did not breach section 152(1)(a) when it denied membership to an individual who was a member of a competing union.

The Applicant alleged the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 (the “Union”) and various other parties committed unfair labour practices by denying him membership in the Union contrary to sections 26 and 152(1) of the Code. The Union requested the matter be summarily dismissed on the basis the matter was an internal union matter over which the Board had no jurisdiction or, alternatively, on the basis the application had no merit. Among other arguments, it submits it is not obligated to admit into membership individuals whose conduct does not adhere to the principles of the Union’s constitution and by-laws.

Held: The Board dismissed the complaints. Absent statutory protections, the basic proposition at law is that a union has an unfettered power to decide who shall be admitted to membership. In terms of statutory protections, section 26 provides no assistance to the Applicant as the protections provided by the section only apply to members – not applicants for membership. Section 152(1) provides statutory protection to an applicant by stating a trade union must not “deny membership in the trade union to a person by applying to the person in a discriminatory manner the membership rules of the trade union.” In this case, the Applicant’s membership in a competing union allowed the Union to legitimately deny the membership request without breaching section 152.

| View Decision |

03/04/2006 -  Shon Marsh and the Calgary Police Association and Alan Koenig - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-015

| View Decision |

30/03/2006 -  David Hunter and Darren Plitt and Travco Industrial Housing Ltd. and PTI Group Inc. and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-014

| View Decision |

22/03/2006 -  Smoky Lake Foundation Management Body and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1461 - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-013

| View Decision |

17/03/2006 -  Robert Melnychuk and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146, Warren Fraleigh, Dale Werner, Morgan Fedak, the Boilermaker Apprenticeship Administration Agency (Alberta) and Allan Belter - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-012

| View Decision |

17/03/2006 -  David Thompson Regional Health Authority and The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and David Thompson Regional Health Authority - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-011

| View Decision |

16/03/2006 -  Tracker Logistics Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 and Finning Canada/Finning International Inc. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-010

| View Decision |

16/03/2006 -  Chinook Regional Health Authority and The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, and Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 408, United Nurses of Alberta, Locals 23, 66, 82, 89, 102, 120, 140, 152, 160, and 164 and The Coaldale Community Hospital Association, Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-009

| View Decision |

09/03/2006 -  Neville Toppin v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 - Formal Decision - - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. 31

Complaint – Timeliness – s. 16(2) – The Board adopted a new and more restrictive approach to the issue of timeliness.

The Complainant alleged the Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 (the “Union”) breached sections 151(h) (unlawful union discipline) and section 151(f) (anti-union coercion and intimidation). The complaint was filed at a minimum seven and one-half months after the Complainant “knew or ought to have known” of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint. The Union alleges the complaint should be dismissed as untimely as being filed well beyond the expiry of the 90-day discretionary period set out in section 16(2) of the Code.

Held, Adopting a new and more restrictive approach to the issue of timeliness, the Board dismissed the application as being untimely. In reaching this conclusion the Board set out the proper approach as follows: 1. prejudice is presumed for all complaints filed later than 90 days; 2. the complaint will be dismissed unless countervailing considerations exist; 3. the longer the delay the stronger the countervailing considerations must be; 4. the list of countervailing considerations is non-exhaustive but includes the sophistication of the party seeking relief, the reason for the delay, whether the delay has caused actual prejudice, the importance of the rights asserted and the apparent strength of complaint.

| View Decision |

27/02/2006 -  Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 34G and Transcontinental Printing 2005 G.P. - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-008

| View Decision |

22/02/2006 -  Classified Media (Canada) Holdings Inc. and Central Web Offset Ltd. and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 255-G - Interim Directive

| View Decision |

21/02/2006 -  United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 and Lakeside Feeders Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-007

| View Decision |

06/02/2006 -  Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4731 and Certain Employees of Discovery House Family Violence Prevention Society and Discovery House Family Violence Prevention Society - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-006

| View Decision |

17/01/2006 - Adrian Wandler and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Union No. 777, Terry Dekker, Phil Belanger and Air Liquide Canada Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-005

| View Decision |

16/01/2006 - UNITE HERE Local 47 brought by Certain Employees of Glen Eden Realty & Development Ltd. and Glen Eden Realty & Development Ltd. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-004

| View Decision |

13/01/2006 - International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Lodge 146; and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 and Local 496 Operating as the Quality Control Council of Canada and Cooperheat-MSQ Canada Inc. - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-002

| View Decision |

13/01/2006 - Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and David Thompson Regional Health Authority - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-003

| View Decision |

12/01/2006 - United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 and Firestone Energy Corporation and Suncor Energy Inc. and First North Catering and Rentokil Initial Canada Limited, c.o.b. as Initial Security and Construction Workers Union (CLAC), Local No. 63 - Letter Decision - Cite: [2006] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-001

| View Decision |

Back