An Alberta court has dismissed a union’s challenge to the layoff of three boilermakers during the early COVID-19 pandemic, ruling that an employer acted within its rights when it laid off workers whose union refused to accept new shift schedules demanded by a client.
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta upheld a decision by the Alberta Labour Relations Board that found Melloy Industrial Services did not violate labour laws when it laid off three members of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers in April 2020.
The layoffs occurred after Nutrien, Melloy’s client, changed its shift schedule at a worksite from four 10-hour days to a “7-on, 7-off” rotation to reduce COVID-19 exposure risks. When the Boilermakers Union refused to consent to the new schedule, Melloy laid off the three workers and filled the reduced crew positions with members of another union who agreed to the changes.
Union challenges multiple violations
The Boilermakers Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint, arguing the layoffs violated several sections of the Labour Relations Code. The union claimed the terminations were anti-union, constituted an illegal lockout, and violated bargaining obligations during a statutory freeze period when their collective agreement had expired but negotiations were ongoing.
The union also argued that Melloy failed to bargain in good faith by not providing adequate notice that layoffs would result if the union didn’t consent to the shift changes.
The labour board rejected all of these arguments, finding that Melloy’s actions were justified by the circumstances and permitted under the existing collective agreement.
Court rejects good faith bargaining claim
Justice Maureen J. McGuire addressed each of the union’s arguments in turn. On the good faith bargaining issue, the court found the labour board reasonably concluded that Melloy’s general manager M.S. provided adequate communication to the union about the consequences of refusing the shift change.
The board had accepted that S. “communicated to the Union that Nutrien intended to proceed with the new shift schedule whether or not Melloy agreed to accommodate it, and that if Melloy could not accommodate it, Nutrien would find another contractor who would.”
While there was no express statement that refusing the shift change would result in layoffs, the court found “that was the obvious implication” and the communication was adequate given the rapidly changing circumstances of the early pandemic.
No improper changes during bargaining freeze
The union argued that laying off workers when they refused the shift change effectively imposed the requested change in violation of rules prohibiting employers from altering terms during bargaining periods.
The court disagreed, finding the labour board reasonably concluded that no change was imposed on the boilermakers. Instead, when consent wasn’t given, “the situation existed wherein the employer had no work available to the workers under the previous shift schedule conditions.”
The court noted that the existing collective agreement gave Melloy the right to control crew sizes and lay off employees, making the layoffs permissible under the contract.
The union had suggested Melloy should have subsidized overtime pay to keep the boilermakers working the new schedule, but the court found the collective agreement didn’t restrict management’s right to lay off employees in such circumstances.
Layoffs not disguised lockout
On the union’s claim that the layoffs constituted an illegal lockout, the court upheld the labour board’s factual finding that there was no evidence Melloy was trying to compel employees to accept new terms.
The court emphasized that “a layoff cannot be a lockout if there is no work available to be done by the employees under the existing collective agreement.” Melloy genuinely had no work for the three boilermaker employees after Nutrien changed its requirements.
The court rejected the union’s argument that this created a dangerous precedent, noting that Melloy “did not make a decision to change the shift pattern” but was responding to its client’s demands. The reduced crew didn’t do boilermaker work specifically – welding could be performed by either boilermakers or members of the pipefitters union.
No anti-union motivation found
The court also upheld findings that the layoffs weren’t motivated by anti-union sentiment. While the union argued that anti-union intent could be inferred from the timing of the layoffs following their refusal to consent, the court found the labour board reasonably accepted Melloy’s explanation that the layoffs resulted from legitimate business needs.
The court noted there was evidence contradicting any anti-union motive: some boilermakers who worked as planners were retained and accommodated under the new 7-on, 7-off schedule by working alternating weeks at home and in the office.
Pandemic context key factor
Throughout its analysis, the court emphasized the extraordinary circumstances of the early COVID-19 pandemic. Alberta had declared a public health emergency in March 2020, and “hundreds of Melloy’s employees across Alberta were laid off” as clients reduced operations. Melloy’s workforce dropped from around 1,000 employees to about 20 during this period.
The three affected boilermakers – C.C., M.F. and J.-C.M. – were described as “excellent employees” who likely would have continued working “had it not been for the manner of Nutrien’s COVID-19 response.”
The court found the labour board’s decision reasonable across all issues raised, concluding that the board’s “written decision demonstrates a rational chain of analysis in relation to the issues raised, based upon the evidence heard.”
For more information, see International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Local Lodge 146 v Melloy Industrial Services Inc., 2025 ABKB 334 (CanLII).
