The Alberta Labour Relations Board has dismissed an unfair labour practice complaint brought by a former Edmonton transit operator who alleged his union failed to fairly represent him in disciplinary matters, including his termination for cause.
In a decision dated April 11, 2025, the Board found that the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local Union No. 569 acted reasonably and within its discretion under the Labour Relations Code when it chose to withdraw a grievance and declined to challenge the termination of S.T.’s employment.
S.T. alleged the union breached its duty under s. 153(1) of the Code by withdrawing a grievance related to a five-day suspension and failing to file a second grievance over his subsequent dismissal. The Board concluded that there was “no arguable case” that the union’s actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, in bad faith, or seriously negligent.
Grievance withdrawn after admission of red light violation
S.T. received a five-day suspension in June 2024 after two alleged red light violations while operating a bus. During a grievance meeting, he admitted to one of the infractions and claimed a signal failure caused the second.
The union investigated and found no evidence of a signal malfunction, including confirmation from an LRT inspector who was also a union steward. The employer refused to provide video footage, but noted audio records revealed no reports of signal issues.
Citing S.T.’s prior record — including a one-day suspension, three-day suspension, and formal counselling, all related to safety violations — the union withdrew the grievance, determining it had no reasonable chance of success.
The Board held that the union’s investigation was sufficient and its decision not to pursue arbitration reasonable in light of the available evidence and S.T.’s admission. “In this context,” it said, “the Union’s decision not to pursue the Grievance further was neither arbitrary nor seriously negligent.”
Termination followed new safety violation; union advised resignation
S.T. was later dismissed after crossing a double yellow line to pass a street cleaner, entering oncoming traffic. During a meeting with the employer, he was presented with video footage and told he would be terminated for cause.
The union’s representative, Daryll Miller, discussed the possibility of resignation with S.T. While he alleged he was pressured to resign, the Board found no evidence of coercion. It concluded the employer had already decided to terminate S.T. and the union’s suggestion to resign rather than be fired for cause was not improper.
Timing issue raised but not determinative
Although the collective agreement required a grievance to be initiated within 10 working days, S.T. did not contact the union again until nearly a month after his termination. While this raised questions about delay, the Board declined to dismiss the complaint on those grounds, instead addressing the merits.
Ultimately, the Board concluded that the union fulfilled its duty by investigating the matter, considering S.T.’s disciplinary history, and making a reasoned decision that a grievance challenging the termination was unlikely to succeed.
Board: disagreement with union not grounds for complaint
In dismissing the complaint, the Board noted that a union is not obligated to take every case to arbitration simply because an employee wishes it. “A union does not fail in its duty of fair representation simply because it makes a decision that the employee does not agree with,” the decision stated.
The complaint was dismissed under s. 16(4)(e) of the Labour Relations Code for lacking merit.
For more information, see Tarim v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local Union No. 569, 2025 ALRB 35 (CanLII).
