An arbitration board has ruled that EPCOR Utilities violated its collective agreement and labour legislation when it banned a designated union representative from its premises, effectively prohibiting the representative from interacting with management or employees.
The board found the employer’s move amounted to interference with the union’s representational rights, although it did not condone the representative’s conduct during workplace meetings.
The dispute centred on B.G., a labour relations officer employed by Civic Service Union 52. It represents a large group of clerical and office staff at the utility. B.G. was assigned to advocate for two employees — referred to in the proceedings as Ms. A and Ms. B — who were involved in complex accommodation and disability-related matters.
Both employees had taken extended leaves, allegedly due to medical conditions. B.G. sought their return to work with what he described as the “duty to accommodate,” while EPCOR said it was administering its disability benefits and accommodation processes in a reasonable manner.
Employer’s decision to ban B.G.
Tensions between B.G. and certain EPCOR representatives, including A.M. (a senior manager of labour relations), K.R. (a human resources consultant) and T.C. (a director of total rewards and labour relations), escalated over time. The employer claimed B.G. had engaged in disrespectful and intimidating conduct, asserting he was “aggressive,” “condescending” and “intimidating” toward its staff.
By letter, T.C. formally barred B.G. from entering all employer premises and prohibited him from attending any meetings — either in person or virtually — that involved EPCOR personnel.
The letter specifically cited the EPCOR’s “Respectful Workplace Policy” and obligations under occupational health and safety legislation, stating that B.G.’s conduct had created “an environment that was hostile,” and that the employer had a duty to provide a “psychologically safe work environment.”
Union’s position and the grievance
EPCOR grieved the ban, alleging it amounted to employer interference with the administration of the union and violated the collective agreement. It pointed to article provisions guaranteeing the Union’s right to represent employees and argued that unilaterally barring B.G. “directly relate[s] to the administration of the Union.”
The Union also maintained that, if the Employer believed it had legitimate harassment or bullying concerns, it should have followed the collective agreement’s dispute resolution process rather than instituting a ban.
In a letter initiating the grievance, the Union wrote: “EPCOR has no right or authority to do what it has done.” The Union also highlighted that other avenues were available: “The employer has lawful options to address its concerns … What it cannot do … is unilaterally dictate to the Union who will be allowed to represent employees.”
Arbitration board’s analysis
After hearing testimony from B.G. and multiple EPCOR witnesses, and reviewing extensive documentation, the arbitration board noted that B.G. “was at times over aggressive, rude and condescending.” It acknowledged that certain EPCOR employees felt harassed or intimidated by his approach.
However, it also recognized that union representation often involves advocacy that can become heated, and that “an adversarial relationship is not necessarily an angry or aggressive relationship.”
The crux of the decision turned on whether EPCOR could rely on its unilaterally adopted policy to refuse entry or further contact with B.G. “We do not condone B.G.’s behaviour in the instances before us,” the board wrote. “It was at times over aggressive, rude and condescending. … We find the decision to ban B.G. amounts to interference with the union’s rights.”
The board explained that while employees, managers and union officials should aim to maintain respectful dialogue — especially in sensitive accommodation discussions — the Employer’s Respectful Workplace Policy did not displace the union’s fundamental right to choose its own representatives. “Union representatives are exercising statutory rights on behalf of the Union,” the decision stated. “That does not include an employer unilaterally setting out its rules and taking unilateral action if these rules are, in the employer’s view, not followed.”
Occupational health and safety considerations
Although EPCOR repeatedly cited its obligations to maintain a psychologically safe workplace, the board found that relying exclusively on the policy to ban a union official was an impermissible “self-help” remedy. If EPCOR believed B.G.’s conduct rose to the level of genuine harassment or other contraventions, it could have filed its own grievance under the collective agreement, sought an independent investigation, or pursued other dispute resolution avenues.
In the board’s words: “We accept that persons working for [the Employer] … found dealing with B.G. difficult and upsetting.” Even so, the arbitration panel underscored that “there are restraints on a union representative’s conduct, but they come from the collective agreement itself and the general law,” rather than a unilaterally imposed employer policy.
Disability accommodation disputes as context
Underpinning B.G.’s frustration was the assertion that EPCOR relied overly on third-party disability consultants and insurers in making accommodation decisions, rather than assessing the options directly with union input. The employer maintained it was following established practices. According to the board, this broader misunderstanding over roles and responsibilities contributed to an already strained relationship.
The board observed that “opportunities for diplomatic intervention were at several points squandered.” Instead of using the collective agreement’s dispute resolution process, including consultation or joint problem-solving steps, EPCOR and B.G. remained locked in antagonistic exchanges. Ultimately, the employer’s stance that B.G. had to adhere to its respectful workplace policy gave rise to the ban, which the board concluded was unwarranted.
Remedy
The board ordered EPCOR to lift the ban, stating, “We hold that the alleged harassment can be the subject of the grievance procedure,” and that “a union representative is not legally restrained by the employer’s policy.” While urging the Union and B.G. to take to heart the board’s criticism of his approach, the decision emphasized that the Employer must “engage in the ways they have promised to do” under the collective agreement.
Throughout its findings, the arbitration panel reiterated that “a union official … always functions on the borderline of insubordination,” but has certain protected latitude to advocate “fearlessly” on behalf of members, so long as the conduct does not become recklessly abusive or threatening.
For more information, see EPCOR Utilities Inc. v Civic Service Union 52, 2025 CanLII 5351 (AB GAA).