The Alberta Labour Relations Board has denied an application by four defendants — Aramark Canada, Aramark Remote Workplace Services, Lighthouse Camp Services, and United Workforce Group of Alberta (UWGA) — to summarily dismiss unfair labour practice complaints and common and successor employer applications filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local No. 401.
The Board ruled that UFCW’s claims have a reasonable prospect of success and that the case should proceed.
The dispute arises from UFCW’s allegations that Aramark, Lighthouse, UWGA, and various Civeo entities engaged in conduct that undermined UFCW’s bargaining rights following the termination of a contract at remote work camps in Wapasu.
UFCW contends that the respondents colluded to prevent its members from securing employment, gave unlawful assistance to UWGA, and improperly structured operations to avoid UFCW’s bargaining rights. The Board determined that these allegations merit further examination and cannot be dismissed without a full hearing.
Background of the dispute
UFCW represents employees of Buffalo Catering Employees (BCE) under a collective agreement that excluded managerial and administrative roles. BCE previously held a contract to provide camp services at Wapasu Lodges until June 8, 2023, when its agreement with Civeo Canada Limited Partnership was terminated.
After learning that Civeo subsequently contracted with Aramark for camp services, UFCW sought declarations from the Board that Civeo entities were the true, common, or successor employers for BCE’s workers at Wapasu Lodges.
UFCW alleges that after Aramark acquired Lighthouse, it transferred the Civeo contract to Lighthouse, and that UWGA, which has represented Lighthouse employees since 2017, was given preferential treatment in staffing the new contract. UFCW filed two complaints — one seeking an access order and alleging unfair labour practices, and another seeking common and successor employer declarations — arguing that the restructuring was designed to sidestep UFCW’s bargaining rights.
Arguments for summary dismissal
Aramark, Lighthouse, and UWGA argued that UFCW’s complaints should be dismissed on the basis that UWGA was the certified bargaining agent for Lighthouse employees prior to the alleged unfair labour practices. They contended that the Board lacks the authority to replace or displace a certified bargaining agent, that UWGA did not receive preferential treatment, and that UFCW’s claims lacked sufficient factual support.
The respondents also argued that UFCW’s request for a common or successor employer declaration was unfounded, asserting that UFCW failed to provide sufficient details to establish a prima facie case. They maintained that the staffing and contractual changes at Wapasu Lodges were legitimate business decisions rather than efforts to circumvent union obligations.
Board’s reasoning for denying summary dismissal
The Board declined to summarily dismiss UFCW’s applications, emphasizing that:
The existence of another bargaining agent (UWGA) does not automatically bar UFCW’s claims: The Board found that UWGA’s representation of Lighthouse employees does not preclude a determination that Aramark and Lighthouse could be considered common or successor employers.
Successor and common employer declarations require a full hearing: The Board noted that under section 47(2) of the Labour Relations Code (the “Code”), if a business restructuring is found to be aimed at avoiding collective bargaining obligations, a successor employer declaration may be mandatory.
Unfair labour practice complaints warrant further review: UFCW alleged that the respondents acted jointly to prevent its members from gaining employment at Wapasu Lodges, which the Board found to be a serious enough claim to merit a hearing.
Pre-hearing document production is necessary: The Board stressed that UFCW’s request for relevant documents had not yet been adjudicated. The Board typically hesitates to dismiss applications before relevant evidence is disclosed, particularly when key information is controlled by the respondents.
A lack of prima facie case was not established: The Board rejected the argument that UFCW’s claims lacked an “air of reality,” noting that the union had pled sufficient facts to warrant a hearing.
Implications of the ruling
The Board reaffirmed that it applies a cautious approach when considering summary dismissal applications. It will generally avoid dismissing common or successor employer applications before pre-hearing disclosure and without a full evidentiary record. While the ruling does not determine the merits of UFCW’s claims, it ensures that the union’s allegations will be examined in a full hearing.
With the dismissal request denied, the next steps will involve UFCW’s outstanding production requests and further case management discussions. The Board will now proceed with hearing UFCW’s applications in Board Files No. GE-08970 and GE-08989.
For more information, see United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local No. 401 v Aramark Canada Ltd. et al, 2025 ALRB 28 (CanLII).
