The Alberta Labour Relations Board has dismissed a duty of fair representation complaint filed by a former Carry Steel employee after finding a settlement offer from the union and employer was fair and reasonable.
The complaint was brought against United Steelworkers, Local 5575. The worker alleged the union failed to properly investigate his termination and withdrew his grievance without sufficient communication.
The board determined the settlement provided adequate compensation for the loss of chance at arbitration and dismissed the case.
Termination dispute
The worker began with Carry Steel in October 2021 and took a medical leave in January 2022 for carpal tunnel surgery. He returned to modified duties later that year but went on another medical leave in February 2023 after being sprayed with paint on the job.
Carry Steel said witnesses heard the worker say he was quitting. He remained off work through spring 2023, providing medical notes to the Workers’ Compensation Board but not directly to the employer, according to the union. The worker said he tried to send a note but did not realize it was not received until June.
The employer terminated his employment on May 16, 2023, citing the collective agreement, which deemed an employee to have resigned after five consecutive days of unauthorized absence.
The union grieved the termination in June but later withdrew the grievance, saying it was unlikely to succeed at arbitration.
Worker’s complaint
The worker claimed the union failed to communicate with him after the termination and did not properly investigate his concerns. He alleged the union acted in concert with the employer. He sought damages for lost wages, pain and suffering, and reimbursement for tools left at the workplace.
The union and employer offered a settlement consisting of a lump-sum payment for damages related to the termination and reimbursement for the lost tools. The worker argued the offer was not fair or reasonable. (The dollar amount of the offer was not included in the ruling.)
Board’s analysis
The board reviewed the submissions and considered whether the offer adequately compensated the worker for his loss of chance at arbitration. It noted that while the employer quickly moved to terminate, the worker failed to maintain communication after his WCB claim was denied.
The board found the grievance had “an arguable case” but was not strong. Even if successful, reinstatement was unlikely because the worker did not want to return. That left damages in lieu of reinstatement as the likely remedy, but the board said the worker’s short service and tenuous connection to the workplace meant any award would have been low.
It also noted damages for pain and suffering are rare and typically nominal. The reimbursement for the tools was described as “generous,” given the worker had not complied with the collective agreement requirement to provide a tool list at the start of employment.
“The offer at issue fairly compensates the Complainant for the loss of chance at arbitration,” the board wrote.
The board ruled the offer was fair and reasonable. The worker has two weeks from the decision date to accept. If he does not, the complaint will be summarily dismissed.
For more information, see United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers), Local Union No. 5575 v Complainant, 2025 ALRB 118 (CanLII).
