The Alberta Labour Relations Board has dismissed a duty of fair representation (DFR) complaint against the Central Alberta Association of Municipal and School Employees, ruling that a settlement offer presented by the union to an educational assistant was fair and reasonable.
The Board panel concluded that the settlement, which the union offered in April 2022, met the criteria outlined under section 153(3.1) of the Labour Relations Code. The section allows the Board to reject complaints where the complainant has refused to accept a fair and reasonable settlement. The complainant, a long-serving educational assistant with Parkland School Division No. 70, rejected the offer.
The complainant originally filed the DFR complaint on Oct. 6, 2020, alleging that her layoff from Spruce Grove Composite High School in November 2018 was disciplinary. She claimed the union failed to represent her adequately in addressing her concerns. The union argued that it had offered a reasonable settlement, which the complainant refused.
“The Association’s offer is fair and reasonable,” the Board wrote in its decision, noting that the complainant’s case had a “mixed chance of success” at arbitration, with “moderate” prospects regarding her layoff from the school and “low” prospects relating to later events, including a second layoff from a different school.
Background of the complaint
The complainant had been employed as an Educational Assistant II with Parkland School Division for 11 years before the incident that led to her initial layoff. On Nov. 7, 2018, she was allegedly reprimanded by a teacher for her role in a student’s essay being regraded, prompting the school principal to accuse her of violating the division’s code of conduct.
The complainant met with the principal without union representation and later provided a written statement to the division. On Nov. 13, 2018, the complainant was formally laid off and given the option to bump another employee or be placed on a recall list. She chose the recall list, and by the end of November 2018, the division offered her a position at a different school, albeit with reduced hours.
The complainant refused the recall offer and requested that the union file a grievance, arguing that the layoff was a form of wrongful dismissal. However, the union declined to file a grievance immediately and instead sought legal counsel. In December 2018, the complainant accepted a full-time position at another school, Greystone Centennial Middle School, but with a trial period attached. She continued to maintain that her removal from the original position was disciplinary and that the union had failed to support her.
Settlement offer and legal proceedings
The union’s settlement offer in April 2022 proposed monetary compensation in exchange for the withdrawal of the DFR complaint. The complainant rejected the offer, leading the union to file an application under section 153(3.1) of the Labour Relations Code. The Board panel, consisting of Ian J. Smith, Joanne Begemann, and Peter Eustergerling, heard the application.
According to the ruling, the Board’s assessment of the settlement offer did not require it to determine whether the proposed settlement mirrored what it would order at arbitration. Instead, the Board’s task was to decide if the offer was “fair and reasonable” in the context of the complaint and the potential outcomes if it proceeded to a hearing.
The Board found that even if the complainant had successfully proven that her layoff was disciplinary, the potential damages would have been limited. The complainant was provided 10 days’ pay in lieu of notice and was subsequently reassigned to a comparable position at another school. The Board noted that “the loss may be nominal or minimal.”
Regarding the complainant’s second layoff in June 2019, the Board found limited grounds for success. The complainant had rejected several recall offers from the school division, which contributed to her termination in 2020. The Board determined that this complicated the connection between her initial layoff and her eventual dismissal.
The Board also addressed concerns raised by the complainant about the release clause in the settlement, which barred her from discussing the settlement terms and required her to acknowledge that the complaint was settled to her satisfaction. The Board found the release to be “standard” and not unfair.
For more information, see Central Alberta Association of Municipal and School Employees Local 1 v Complainant, 2024 ALRB 85 (CanLII).
