The Alberta Labour Relations Board has dismissed a duty of fair representation (DFR) complaint filed by a worker against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 424, finding that the union’s failure to disclose certain employer documents was an oversight that did not breach its obligations under the Labour Relations Code.
In a decision issued by Vice Chair Ian J. Smith, the Board concluded that the union’s actions did not amount to serious negligence or arbitrary conduct. “The complaint lacks merit and is dismissed pursuant to section 16(4)(e) of the Code,” the ruling stated.
R.I., a former employee of Laird Electric at the Suncor Base Plant in Fort McMurray, Alta., was terminated on June 17, 2022, following an incident on June 13, 2022. After conducting an investigation, the union informed R.I. on Aug. 3, 2022, that it would not file a grievance on his behalf.
Dissatisfied with this decision, R.I. filed an initial DFR complaint on Sept. 15, 2022, alleging the union failed to fairly represent him regarding his termination. On Sept. 29, 2022, the union received two documents from the employer: a general statement form written by the foreman and a Suncor security incident report (the “Two Documents”). These were forwarded to the union’s external legal counsel the same day.
In its Oct. 12, 2022, response to the initial complaint, the union did not include or reference the Two Documents. R.I. withdrew his complaint on Nov. 3, 2022.
Subsequently, R.I. continued to assert that a grievance should have been filed, while the union maintained its decision. In March 2023, the union provided R.I. with the Two Documents, which he claimed he had not seen before. R.I. argued that had he known about these documents, he would not have withdrawn his initial complaint.
On April 11, 2023, R.I. filed a new DFR complaint, alleging that the union’s failure to disclose the Two Documents was “seriously negligent” and that its refusal to reconsider its decision not to grieve was arbitrary.
The union responded by acknowledging the oversight but contended that the failure to disclose the documents did not constitute a breach of its duty of fair representation. It stated that the oversight was an accident and did not change its assessment of the grievance’s merits. “The union’s mistake here was an honest one, and once discovered, it did not seek to hide behind it,” the Board noted.
The Board emphasized that for a breach of the duty of fair representation to occur, there must be more than mere negligence. Citing precedent, the Board stated: “Something more than just a mistake or error falling below the normal standard of competence, knowledge, or diligence expected of unions is necessary for conduct to reach the threshold of serious negligence.”
In assessing whether the union acted arbitrarily in refusing to reconsider filing a grievance, the Board reviewed the Two Documents alongside the information the union had previously gathered. It determined that the documents did not “materially contradict or undermine the information the union had gathered and relied upon in making its Aug. 3, 2022 decision not to grieve.”
The Board acknowledged the union’s discretion in managing grievances. “Refusing to reconsider or re-open a grievance is not necessarily indicative of an inappropriate or arbitrary use of that discretion,” the ruling stated. The union had thoroughly investigated the matter, communicated with R.I., and made a reasoned judgment.
For HR professionals and employment lawyers, this decision underscores the threshold required for a breach of the duty of fair representation. The Board reiterated that unions are not held to a standard of perfection. “Serious or gross negligence in the labour relations context involves blatant disregard for an employee’s or former employee’s interests regarding their rights under a collective agreement,” the Board explained.
The ruling highlights the importance of unions conducting thorough investigations and making informed decisions. As outlined in Information Bulletin #18: Duty of Fair Representation, a union fulfills its duty by “investigating the grievance and obtaining full details of the case, including the employee’s side of the story; putting its mind to the merits of the claim; and making a reasoned judgment about the disposition of the grievance.”
The Board’s decision serves as a reminder that while unions must avoid arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions, they have significant discretion in handling grievances. Honest mistakes or oversights, when promptly addressed, do not necessarily amount to a breach of duty.
In conclusion, the Labour Board’s dismissal of R.I.’s complaint reaffirms that unions are afforded latitude in grievance management, provided they act reasonably and without serious negligence. The decision reinforces the legal principles surrounding the duty of fair representation and the standards unions must meet in representing their members.
For more information, see Imhoff v Local Union 424, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 2024 ALRB 110 (CanLII).
